DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/05/2026 has been entered.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claim(s) 2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13-14, and 16-20 have been cancelled. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 15 are pending examination. This action is non-final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 is improper. Applicant asserts that the claims as amended to recite, “environment affects an error characteristic and/or noise contribution associated with the sensor data” is taught by the spec and is enabling.
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 101 rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 is improper. Applicant asserts that the claims as amended recite, “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” and therefore it is significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 is improper. Applicant asserts that the newly amended limitation recites, “wherein retrieving the one or more baseline motion models comprises retrieving at least two baseline motion models,” is not taught by any of the cited prior art.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, "Claim rejections - 35 USC 112(a)", filed 05/05/2026, with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 15 has been withdrawn.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner agrees. In light of the claim amendments, the claims are now enabled by the spec. The claims as amended allow for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the application and construct it as claimed. Therefore the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) has been removed.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-9, "Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101", filed 05/05/2026, with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 15 has been withdrawn.
Regarding applicant’s argument B, the examiner agrees. In light of the claims as amended the claims no longer recite a judicial exception without an inventive concept/significantly more. The independent claims 1, 8, and 15 now also recite, “controlling at least one operation of the vehicle in a semi-autonomous or autonomous mode.” This language provides a positive control step in which the judicial exception is providing a practical application, namely controlling the operation of the vehicle. In light of this amendment the 35 USC 101 rejection of the claims is overcome.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant’s argument C, the examiner finds it moot. The applicant’s argument is based on newly amended limitations that were not cited as taught by the prior art. However, after further search and consideration the examiner believes that previously cited art Graves (US PG Pub 2025/0012576) still teaches the claims as amended. Applicant points towards Graves’s failure to teach, “wherein retrieving the one or more baseline motion models comprises retrieving at least two baseline motion models.” However, looking at Graves Figs. 5-6 and [0082]-[0083] it is taught that the system can obtain, “a road segment including a plurality of reference road-profiles corresponding to different tracks in the road segment may be obtained. For example, the road segment may be downloaded to or otherwise made available to an on-board processor of a vehicle from a local or remote server.” Clearly taught in Graves is that the system can obtain more than one motion profile. The system can then narrow this down to one road profile to be used by the vehicle. In light of this the examiner would still reject the claims as obvious under 35 USC 103 in view of Graves and Loomis (US PG Pub 2019/0265049). See the section below titled, “Claim Rejections - 35 USC 103,” for further detailed mapping and explanation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation one or more baseline motion models, and the claim also recites retrieving at least two baseline motion models which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
If applicant wanted to limit the claims to “two” motion models the applicant can amend the claims so that it recites “two or more” or applicant can introduce the claim “two” motion models as a dependent claim. Please contact the examiner for further explanation as needed.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for using similar language to claim 1. Claims 3, 5, 10, and 12 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves (US PG Pub 2025/0012576) in view of Loomis (US PG Pub 2019/0265049).
Regarding claim 1, Graves teaches an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the processor, ([0075] teaches a processor coupled to memory storing instructions that can be executed by the processor) cause the apparatus to at least: receive sensor data from an inertial measurement unit associated with a vehicle; (At least Fig. 5, item 322; and [0082] teach the system collecting sensor data from the vehicle sensors. [0043], [0051], and [0063] teach the vehicle using a series of inertial measurement devices)
determine, from the sensor data, a motion model of the vehicle; (At least Fig. 5, item 322; and [0082] teach the system collecting sensor data from the vehicle sensors. This sensor data includes vehicle motion data that is calculated as a road profile, which is analogous to the vehicle motion profile as both are generated as a vehicle travels on a road and create a fingerprint of the inertial data for the segment travelled. If the applicant were to disagree the examiner would also consider this to be a Reversal of Parts. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) The current claim calls for a motion profile of a vehicle to be determined, while the prior art teaches a road profile as calculated. Both the current application and the prior art use a vehicle’s inertial data, as it travels over a road to determine a “profile” while the prior art calls it a road profile, the current claim calls it a motion profile. The element being “profiled” is merely reversed and as the crux of the invention is the same, i.e. fingerprinting the road based on inertial data, the solution to use the vehicle’s profile vs. the road profile would be an obvious change.)
retrieve one or more baseline motion models, wherein each baseline motion model corresponds to a path within an operating environment along one or more road segments, (Fig. 5, item 320 and [0082] teach the vehicle retrieving a series of reference road profiles from a server) wherein the operating environment affects an error characteristic and/or noise contribution associated with the sensor data from the inertial measurement unit associated with the vehicle, (Fig. 10 and [0091] teach the environment may induce error in the IMU over time. [0036] further teaches the error of an IMU is a known issue and can be overcome by incorporating some other kind of positioning information, mainly GNSS, in order to correct the error over time. Graves [0038] furthers this kind of error reduction by introducing the idea of altering the “length” of road segments measured in order to more accurately measure such segments based on the type of road. This would be akin to altering data collection based on the operating environment.) and wherein retrieving the one or more baseline motion models comprises retrieving at least two baseline motion models; (Figs. 5-6 and [0082]-[0083] teach the system retrieving “a plurality of reference road-profiles corresponding to different tracks in the road segment.” This shows the vehicle system clearly obtaining multiple motion models.)
calculate relative ([0082] and Fig. 5 item 326 teaches the vehicle system comparing the reference road profile to the measured road profile and determining a difference between them, the examiner sees this as the system calculating a difference between the measured value and the baseline value)
identify a predicted motion model of the one or more baseline motion models as corresponding to the vehicle motion model, (Fig. 5 item 328 and [0082] teach the system determining that the vehicle measured profile matches a baseline road profile when the correlation number exceeds a threshold. This in turn determines the road the vehicle is on) a plurality of reference road-profiles corresponding to different tracks in the road segment) wherein identifying the predicted motion model comprises causing the apparatus to selected, from among the at least two baseline motion models, a most probably baseline motion model corresponding to the motion model of the vehicle; (Figs. 5-6 and [0082]-[0083] teach the vehicle system selecting the road profile that corresponds most to the motions detected by the vehicle)
determine a path of the vehicle to correspond with the path within the operating environment corresponding to the predicted motion model; (Fig. 5 item 334 and [0084] teach the vehicle system determining the road it is on and controlling the vehicle in response to the determination of the road/pathway it is on)
provide location based services for the vehicle based on (Fig. 5, item 334; and [0082] teach the vehicle system providing location based services based on the determined vehicle location) the location based services comprising (Fig. 5, item 334; and [0082] teach the system controlling the vehicle in a semi-autonomous way. [0042] further teaches controlling the vehicle in an autonomous way)
Graves does not teach calculate relative transformations; determine a map-matched location of the vehicle, the map-matched, and outputting navigational guidance instructions.
However, Loomis teaches “calculate relative transformations.” ([0048]-[0050] teaches the system determining the difference in angle and translation between the baseline road model and the imu measured model) “determine a map-matched location of the vehicle” ([0028]-[0029] teach the system as using the determined vehicle dead reckoning information and compared to an estimate location as finding a “position (x, y, z)” of the vehicle on a road network) “the map-matched location” ([0028]-[0029] teach the system as using the determined vehicle dead reckoning information and compared to an estimate location as finding a “position (x, y, z)” of the vehicle on a road network) and “outputting navigational guidance instructions.” ([0020] teaches outputting navigational instructions to the user of a vehicle based on the map-matched location)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Graves with Loomis; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the use of dead reckoning systems and matching systems in order to determine that a vehicle is located at/on a specific road segment. As Graves matches based on the usage of lengths travelled and road profiles, it can calculate a correlation value between the measured value and the baseline. Loomis teaches a determination of the difference between the dead reckoned road and the existing road, [0049]. As Loomis teaches [0048] there is an inherent bias in using a dead reckoning system. Determining this value and correcting it allows for the optimal road travel as it prevents drift that is common in IMU systems.
Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale.
Regarding claim 3, Graves teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Graves does not teach, wherein causing the apparatus to identify a predicted motion model of the one or more baseline motion models as corresponding to the vehicle motion model further comprises causing the apparatus to determine an uncertainty of the predicted motion model corresponding to the vehicle motion model.
However, Loomis teaches “wherein causing the apparatus to identify a predicted motion model of the one or more baseline motion models as corresponding to the vehicle motion model further comprises causing the apparatus to determine an uncertainty of the predicted motion model corresponding to the vehicle motion model.” ([0030]-[0031] teaches the map matching model determining the probability of the chosen road being the correct road, this is analogous to an uncertainty in the calculation)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Graves with Loomis; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the use of dead reckoning systems and matching systems in order to determine that a vehicle is located at/on a specific road segment. As Graves matches based on the usage of lengths travelled and road profiles, it can calculate a correlation value between the measured value and the baseline. Loomis teaches a determination of the difference between the dead reckoned road and the existing road, [0049]. As Loomis teaches [0048] there is an inherent bias in using a dead reckoning system. Determining this value and correcting it allows for the optimal road travel as it prevents drift that is common in IMU systems.
Claim 10 is substantially similar and would be rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 5, Graves teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein causing the apparatus to determine a path of the vehicle to correspond with the path within the environment corresponding to the predicted motion model further comprises causing the apparatus to determine a pose and velocity of the vehicle within the environment. ([0071] teaches the system of the vehicle using a dead reckoning system which is based on the inertial data of the vehicle including a velocity/speed and pose/direction)
Claim 12 is substantially similar and would be rejected for the same reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miyagawa (US PG Pub 2021/0262825) teaches a travel assistance method causes a sensor to detect a lane boundary present around a vehicle, calculates own positions of the vehicle, converts a coordinate system of the detected lane boundary into a coordinate system equivalent to map data stored in in accordance with the own positions, and integrates configuration information on the lane boundary included in the map data with the lane boundary of which the coordinate system is converted to generate integrated data, wherein an integrated range is determined, when the configuration information is integrated with the lane boundary of which the coordinate system is converted, such that the lane boundary includes at least either parts having different curvatures or straight parts directed in different directions, and the configuration information is mapped with the lane boundary of which the coordinate system is converted to generate the integrated data while including at least the determined integrated range.
Giovanardi (US PG Pub 2024/0317008) teaches systems and methods described herein include implementation of road surface-based localization techniques for advanced vehicle features and control methods including confidence-based consumption, air suspension control systems and methods, end of travel management, road profile creation techniques, and others.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights