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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 11/10/2025. Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 12, 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. Objections to the specification have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. Rejection to claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 over the 35 USC 112(d) rejection has been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
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 the operating environment alters the sensor data from the inertial measurement unit associated with the vehicle,” is not taught by any of the cited prior art.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument, see pages 7-8 of applicant’s remarks rely on paragraph [0033] of the instant application. Paragraph [0033] recites, “An ADAS, as described herein, may be used to improve the comfort, efficiency, safety, and overall satisfaction of driving. Examples of such advanced driver assistance systems include semi-autonomous driver assistance features such as adaptive headlight aiming, adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning and control, curve warning, speed limit notification, hazard warning, predictive cruise control, adaptive shift control, among others. Other examples of an ADAS may include provisions for fully autonomous control of a vehicle to drive the vehicle along a road network without requiring input from a driver. Some of these advanced driver assistance systems use a variety of sensor mechanisms in the vehicle to determine the current state of the vehicle and the current state of the roadway ahead of the vehicle. These sensor mechanisms may include radar, infrared, ultrasonic, and vision-oriented sensors such as image sensors and light distancing and ranging (LiDAR) sensors.” The paragraph is concerned only of the broad application of ADAS systems. The paragraph has no mention of “the control of an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle by considering IMU data,” as applicant argues. The paragraph relied upon is merely a broad and generic explanation of technology that is well understood in the art. Additionally, the claim as amended does not recite a control step for controlling the vehicle based on some form of IMU data. The claim as amened “provide[s] for location based services for the vehicle based on the location comprising at least semi-autonomous vehicle control or autonomous vehicle control.” The claim at best “provides” some form of data to control the vehicle at a location, however, nowhere does it recite the actual controlling of the vehicle, merely providing a method to do so. Applicant broadly claims in their arguments, that their claim as amened is novel and therefore is significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant provides no evidence to this effect and merely alleges this. A mere allegation is not enough to overcome the rejection. Accordingly the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained. Please see the section below titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101.” Dependent claims would be rejected at least due to their dependence on rejected subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 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 B, the examiner finds it moot. Applicant’s argument is a mere allegation that the amended limitation is not taught by the prior art. After further search and consideration the examiner would rely on Fig. 10 and [0091] of Graves to teach the claimed subject matter. The cited portions teach that the environment may induce error in the IMU over time. This would cover the claim as interpreted by the examiner. The claim as amended appears to merely recite the intrinsic idea that the environment in which a vehicle operates would cause the data collected to be different. This is an obvious statement, a sensor operating in different environments would collect different data. With an IMU this may be the error of a dead reckoning system. As Graves teaches in [0036] 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. Given the teachings of Graves as a whole, it is concerned with the error induced by different environments and works to prevent such error, whether this is by shortening measuring lengths to reduce dead reckoning errors or by some other means, the teaching of the claim limitation is there.
It is also noted that applicant’s cited paragraph [0022], see Page 9, does not teach the quoted portion of applicant’s instant application. It is unclear if this is in error or if the quoted portion is incorrect.
Accordingly as all claimed limitations are taught by cited art, the 35 USC 103 rejection of the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 would remain. Please see the section below titled, “Claim Rejections - 35 USC 103.” Dependent claims would be rejected at least due to their dependence on rejected subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim as amended now recites, “wherein the operating environment alters the sensor data from the inertial measurement unit.” Applicant’s amendment, see Page 9, states, “It is also important to consider the operating environment which affects the way sensors react to motion input and changes characteristics of the sensor noise contribution.” [0022] of the instant application. This cited portion of the spec does not convey how the environment alters sensor data. Sensor data, as claimed, appears to convey information that the sensor has captured, not as this amendment appears to claim information yet to be captured. It is unclear how the environment would have the capability to alter this already captured data. As written the claim reads as if there is some way in which the environment itself is able to alter the data of the sensor after it has been captured. The examiner is unclear how this would happen. Additionally, the examiner cannot deduce to what extent the data is altered, is it merely added noise, does the vehicle have different filter/error correction techniques dependent on the environment. The spec is mute on these fronts, and therefore the claim fails on the written description front. Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same reasoning. The dependent claims would be rejected at least due to their dependence on rejected subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Analysis of the claim(s) regarding subject matter eligibility utilizing the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is described below.
STEP 1: STATUTORY CATEGORIES
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 15 do fall into at least one of the four statutory subject matter categories. Claim 1 and its dependents are directed to an apparatus which is the statutory category of a machine. Claim 8 and its dependents are directed to a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium which is the statutory category of a manufacture. Claim 15 is directed to a method which is the statutory category of a process.
STEP 2A: JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS
PRONG 1: RECITATION OF A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION
The claim(s) recite(s):
- Claim 1 recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes and mathematical calculations. Claim 1 recites, “receive sensor data from an inertial measurement unit associated with a vehicle; determine, from the sensor data, a motion model of the vehicle; 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, wherein the operating environment alters the sensor data from the inertial measurement unit associated with the vehicle; calculate relative transformations between the motion model of the vehicle and the one or more baseline motion models; identify a predicted motion model of the one or more baseline motion models as corresponding to the vehicle motion model; and determine a path of the vehicle to correspond with the path within the environment corresponding to the predicted motion model; determine a map-matched location of the vehicle; provide for location based services for the vehicle based on the location of the vehicle; and provide for location based services for the vehicle based on the location of the vehicle comprising at least semi-autonomous vehicle control or autonomous vehicle control.” The claim elements relate to receiving sensor data/data from a server, which would be consider insignificant extra solution activity. The remainder of the claim elements are an abstract idea. The claim steps require determining a motion model, identifying a corresponding model, and determining a path for the vehicle. A person using a generic computing device would be able to compare the data gathered to the baseline model as the steps are recited at a high level, see at least Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Also, person using a generic computing device would be able to compare the data collected to an existing piece of data and match it, i.e. map match a location, and provide location based services. Further claim 1 requires a mathematical calculation. The claim requires a calculation of transformations between the measured and baseline model. The claim limitation is recited at a high level; however, the claims specifically require the calculation which would be a difference between data values. This would be an abstract idea. Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale.
- Claim 3 recites recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. Claim 3 recites, “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.” A person using a pen and paper or a generic computing device would be able to determine an uncertainty in a match between two data points. Claim 10 is substantially similar and would be rejected for the same reasoning.
- Claim 5 recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. Claim 5 recites, “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.” A person with a generic computing device would be able to accomplish this. It appears to recite high level data gathering. A person with a generic computing device/imu sensor would be able to determine the vehicle’s pose and velocity from the data gathered. Claim 12 is substantially similar and would be rejected for the same reasoning.
PRONG 2: INTEGRATION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The additional element(s) recited in the claim(s) beyond the judicial exception are use of generic computing elements, an environment of operation, sensor usage, and services that can be provided. The additional element(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional element(s) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The computer elements are merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and the use of the judicial exception is generally linked to the particular technological environment of autonomous vehicle driving and location determination without using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
STEP 2B: INVENTIVE CONCEPT/SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
The additional elements recited in the claim(s) are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and the computer functions of receiving and transmitting data have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional elements of a “memory” and a “processor” recited in the claim(s) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality (MPEP2106.05 (d)).
Based on the above analysis, claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 15 is/are not eligible subject matter and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101.
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 alters 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.)
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)
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 for location based services for the vehicle based on the location of the vehicle. (Fig. 5, item 334; and [0082] teach the vehicle system providing location based services based on the determined vehicle location) comprising at least semi-autonomous vehicle control or autonomous vehicle control. (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
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)
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.
Riewe (US PG Pub 2003/0216865) teaches an aided inertial navigation system and method for navigating a mobile object having constraints comprising an inertial measurement unit, a processor, and an error correction device. The inertial measurement unit provides acceleration data and/or angular velocity data of the mobile object. The processor is adapted to receive the acceleration data and/or angular velocity data, and to provide output data with position output indicative of position of the mobile object. The error correction device receives as input, state and dynamics information and auxiliary input data including map information associated with the path, speed data, wheel-angle data and discrete data. The error correction device provides as output, state corrections to the processor that enhance accuracy of the position output. The state corrections are used by the processor to estimate position of the mobile object based on the constraints to the mobile object and the map information associated with the path.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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