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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 were originally presented having a filing date of March 28, 2024 and claiming priority to German Application DE 10 2021 203 080.7 that was filed on March 26, 2021 and PCT/DE2022/200049 that was filed on March 18, 2022.
A Preliminary Amendment was filed on September 25, 2023.
Claims 1-11 were amended via Preliminary Amendment.
Claims 1-12 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements that were filed on September 25, 2023, January 16, 2025, June 9, 2025, and July 18, 2025 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the Examiner. Initialed copies of the 1449 Forms are enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6, 8, and 10-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: All of these claims include preambles indicating independent claims and contain limitations referring back to previous claims. These claims are currently considered to be dependent claims. If Applicant wishes for these claims to be independent claims, they must be amended to include all of the limitations of the claims from which they depend. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally
link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process).
Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for assessing accuracy of a swam trajectory position, defined by a processing device, of a swarm trajectory on a defined road section, the method comprising:
capturing a multiplicity of ego trajectory positions of ego vehicles moving on a defined road section;
generating a swarm trajectory having a multiplicity of swam trajectory positions wherein, at predefined swarm trajectory values, the associated swarm trajectory values are formed from the multiplicity of ego trajectory values;
forming a standard deviation for each formed swarm trajectory value of the swarm trajectory; and
storing pairs of the generated swarm trajectory positions and an associated accuracy coefficient for each swarm trajectory position, wherein the accuracy coefficients are proportional to the standard deviations formed for each swarm trajectory position.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “generating a swarm trajectory having a multiplicity of swam trajectory positions wherein, at predefined swarm trajectory values, the associated swarm trajectory values are formed from the multiplicity of ego trajectory values” and “forming a standard deviation for each formed swarm trajectory value of the swarm trajectory” in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing these limitations in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented method for assessing accuracy of a swam trajectory position, defined by a processing device, of a swarm trajectory on a defined road section, the method comprising:
capturing a multiplicity of ego trajectory positions of ego vehicles moving on a defined road section;
generating a swarm trajectory having a multiplicity of swam trajectory positions wherein, at predefined swarm trajectory values, the associated swarm trajectory values are formed from the multiplicity of ego trajectory values;
forming a standard deviation for each formed swarm trajectory value of the swarm trajectory; and
storing pairs of the generated swarm trajectory positions and an associated accuracy coefficient for each swarm trajectory position, wherein the accuracy coefficients are proportional to the standard deviations formed for each swarm trajectory position.
Regarding the additional limitation of “capturing a multiplicity of ego trajectory positions of ego vehicles moving on a defined road section”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that merely gather data to perform updating a map. In particular, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding the additional limitation of “storing pairs of the generated swarm trajectory positions and an associated accuracy coefficient for each swarm trajectory position, wherein the accuracy coefficients are proportional to the standard deviations formed for each swarm trajectory position” it merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose navigation environment. The at least one processor and communicatively connected memory are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the abstract idea steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, the additional limitations of “capturing a multiplicity of ego trajectory positions of ego vehicles moving on a defined road section” and “storing pairs of the generated swarm trajectory positions and an associated accuracy coefficient for each swarm trajectory position, wherein the accuracy coefficients are proportional to the standard deviations formed for each swarm trajectory position”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “capturing a multiplicity of ego trajectory positions of ego vehicles moving on a defined road section” and “storing pairs of the generated swarm trajectory positions and an associated accuracy coefficient for each swarm trajectory position, wherein the accuracy coefficients are proportional to the standard deviations formed for each swarm trajectory position”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a navigation system.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp. 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9, and 12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9, and 12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 12 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eigel, et al. (Publication US 2021/0316751 A1), in view of MacDonald, et al. (Publication US 2021/0279231 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Eigel” and “MacDonald”.)
As per claim 1, Eigel discloses a computer-implemented method for assessing accuracy of a swam trajectory position, defined by a processing device, of a swarm trajectory on a defined road section, the method comprising:
capturing a multiplicity of ego trajectory positions of {an} ego vehicle… moving on a defined road section [see at least Eigel [0016] "providing a plurality of detected trajectories of further vehicles in a route section to be used, for example by receiving by means of a receiving module of the vehicle, for example a database, or alternatively provided in a central processing device, wherein particularly the trajectories have been detected by the further vehicles"];
generating a swarm trajectory having a multiplicity of swam trajectory positions wherein, at predefined swarm trajectory values, the associated swarm trajectory values are formed from the multiplicity of ego trajectory values [see at least Eigel [0017] "ascertaining/determining a trajectory stipulation from the detected trajectories, for example by a computing unit of the vehicle or by the central processing device, wherein optionally the trajectory stipulation is subsequently transmitted to the vehicle and/or is provided there"];
forming a standard deviation for each formed swarm trajectory value of the swarm trajectory [see at least Eigel [0018] "ascertaining/determining a deviation zone from the detected trajectories, for example by the computing unit of the vehicle or by the central processing device, wherein the deviation zone is determined on the basis of a deviation of at least individual detected trajectories from the trajectory stipulation"; [0019] "determining the route stipulation at least on the basis of the trajectory stipulation and deviation zone"]; and
storing pairs of the generated swarm trajectory positions and an associated accuracy coefficient for each swarm trajectory position, wherein the accuracy coefficients are proportional to the standard deviations formed for each swarm trajectory position [see at least Eigel "[0029] ""Furthermore and in some embodiments, it may be provided that the ascertained trajectories are saved centrally on a server, which in particular offers the benefit that the data may be combined, optimized and saved in a particularly secure manner.""; [0049] ""FIG. 1 shows a coordinate system with a first axis 10 and a second axis 20, in which a route section 150 to be used is marked as a sub-area of the coordinate system 10, 20. FIG. 1 also shows a first route point 30 and a second route point 40, between which multiple trajectories 101, 102 as well as a route stipulation 100 extend."; [0050] ""It may be provided that the trajectory stipulation 102 is a mean trajectory of the detected trajectories 101, wherein for example an averaging of the detected trajectories 101 takes place and/or the deviation zone is calculated using the standard deviation of the detected trajectories 101.""; [0051] ""the computing unit 302 is suitable for ascertaining a trajectory stipulation 102 from the detected trajectories 101 and a deviation zone 110 on the basis of a deviation of at least individual detected trajectories 101 from the trajectory stipulation 102. On the basis of the trajectory stipulation 102 and the deviation zone 110, the computing unit 302 then determines a route stipulation 100."]
Eigel fails to disclose … ego vehicles … . However, MacDonald teaches this limitation [see at least MacDonald (ego vehicles)[0037] "… CIPV module 132 gathers information regarding a CIPV and a swarm of vehicles and generates data from the information including exemplary values of trajectory the CIPV within a lane of travel and in relation to the swarm."; FIG. 6; [0028] "FIG. 6 graphically illustrates exemplary positional data collected regarding a swarm of vehicles including a CIPV target through a time span, in accordance with the present disclosure."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Eigel to use … ego vehicles … as disclosed in MacDonald with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved data and guidance to effectively navigate autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. [See at least MacDonald [0058].]
As per claim 2, Eigel fails to disclose …wherein sensors of the ego vehicles moving on the defined road section capture the multiplicity of ego trajectory positions and the method further comprises transmitting, by the sensor, the multiplicity of ego trajectory positions to a processing device arranged outside the ego vehicles, and the processing device generates the swarm trajectory. However, MacDonald teaches this limitation [see at least MacDonald [0037] "… CIPV module 132 gathers information regarding a CIPV and a swarm of vehicles and generates data from the information including exemplary values of trajectory the CIPV within a lane of travel and in relation to the swarm."; [0037] "mission planning module 140"; [0038] " Mission planning module 140 utilizes the breadcrumbing navigation plot from breadcrumbing navigation module 136 and other available information to generate a commanded navigation plot."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Eigel to use …wherein sensors of the ego vehicles moving on the defined road section capture the multiplicity of ego trajectory positions and the method further comprises transmitting, by the sensor, the multiplicity of ego trajectory positions to a processing device arranged outside the ego vehicles, and the processing device generates the swarm trajectory as disclosed in MacDonald with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved data and guidance to effectively navigate autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. [See at least MacDonald [0058].]
As per claim 3, Eigel fails to disclose … wherein sensors of the ego vehicles moving on the defined road section capture the multiplicity of ego trajectory positions each ego vehicle generates its ego trajectory from its captured ego trajectory positions, each ego vehicle transmits its generated ego trajectory to the processing device arranged outside the ego vehicles and the processing device generates the swarm trajectory from the ego trajectory positions. However, MacDonald teaches this limitation [see at least MacDonald [0019] "...The process includes, within a computerized processor of a host vehicle, monitoring the data from a sensor device collecting data related to a plurality of vehicles upon a drivable surface in front of the host vehicle, defining a portion of the plurality of vehicles as a swarm of vehicles..."; [0040] "...Vehicle being controlled 300 is illustrated upon road surface 310 including lane markings 320. Vehicle 300 is illustrated including navigation controller 220, vehicle controller 230, camera device 110, and sensor device 210."; [0039] FIG. 3 schematically illustrates an exemplary data communication system within a vehicle being controlled. Data communication system 200 is illustrated including a camera device 110, a digital map database 120, a sensor device 210, a navigational controller 220, and a vehicle controller 230, each respectively communicatively connected to vehicle data bus 240. ... Vehicle data bus 240 includes a communication network capable of transferring data quickly back and forth between various connected devices and modules."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Eigel to use … wherein sensors of the ego vehicles moving on the defined road section capture the multiplicity of ego trajectory positions each ego vehicle generates its ego trajectory from its captured ego trajectory positions, each ego vehicle transmits its generated ego trajectory to the processing device arranged outside the ego vehicles and the processing device generates the swarm trajectory from the ego trajectory positions as disclosed in MacDonald with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved data and guidance to effectively navigate autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. [See at least MacDonald [0058].]
As per claim 4, Eigel discloses …creating a map of the defined road section containing the pairs of swarm trajectory positions and the associated accuracy coefficients for each swarm trajectory position by performing a method as claimed in claim 1 [see at least Eigel [0016], [0017], [0018], [0029] {See claim 1 explanation above}.]
Eigel fails to disclose … controlling a trailing vehicle so as to drive the road section based on the created map. However, MacDonald teaches this limitation [see at least MacDonald [0039] "FIG. 3 schematically illustrates an exemplary data communication system within a vehicle being controlled."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Eigel to use … controlling a trailing vehicle so as to drive the road section based on the created map as disclosed in MacDonald with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved data and guidance to effectively navigate autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. [See at least MacDonald [0058].]
As per claim 5, Eigel fails to disclose ... wherein the trailing vehicle is controlled using a controller of an at least partially autonomous vehicle system or wherein an output unit of a driver assistance system outputs control specifications for controlling the trailing vehicle. However, MacDonald teaches this limitation [see at least Eigel [0039] "FIG. 3 schematically illustrates an exemplary data communication system within a vehicle being controlled."; [0040] "...Vehicle being controlled 300 is illustrated upon road surface 310 including lane markings 320. Vehicle 300 is illustrated including navigation controller 220, vehicle controller 230, camera device 110, and sensor device 210."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Eigel to use ... wherein the trailing vehicle is controlled using a controller of an at least partially autonomous vehicle system or wherein an output unit of a driver assistance system outputs control specifications for controlling the trailing vehicle as disclosed in MacDonald with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved data and guidance to effectively navigate autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. [See at least MacDonald [0058].]
As per claim 6, Eigel discloses … performing a method as claimed in claim 1 [see at least Eigel [0016], [0017], [0018], [0029] {See Explanation for claim 1 above.}];
… weighting each of the received potential positions based on the associated, source-specific accuracy coefficients [see at least Eigel [0036] "...it may be provided that a weighting factor is taken into account when ascertaining the trajectory stipulation and/or the deviation zone, wherein the weighting factor takes into account the time between the ascertainment of the detected trajectories and a planned use of the route section by the vehicle and/or the type of the further vehicles of the detected trajectories."]
Eigel fails to disclose … receiving, from at least two different sources, respective pairs of a potential position of the trailing vehicle on the defined road section and a source-specific accuracy coefficient associated with the potential position, wherein a first potential position is a swarm trajectory position and wherein a first accuracy coefficient is proportional to the standard deviation formed for the swarm trajectory position, wherein the swarm trajectory position and the first accuracy coefficient being generated by the processing device … and … determining the position of the trailing vehicle by fusing the weighted potential positions. However, MacDonald teaches these limitations:
… receiving, from at least two different sources, respective pairs of a potential position of the trailing vehicle on the defined road section and a source-specific accuracy coefficient associated with the potential position, wherein a first potential position is a swarm trajectory position and wherein a first accuracy coefficient is proportional to the standard deviation formed for the swarm trajectory position, wherein the swarm trajectory position and the first accuracy coefficient being generated by the processing device … [see at least MacDonald [0037] "… CIPV module 132 gathers information regarding a CIPV and a swarm of vehicles and generates data from the information including exemplary values of trajectory the CIPV within a lane of travel and in relation to the swarm."; [0040] "...Vehicle being controlled 300 is illustrated upon road surface 310 including lane markings 320. Vehicle 300 is illustrated including navigation controller 220, vehicle controller 230, camera device 110, and sensor device 210."] and
… determining the position of the trailing vehicle by fusing the weighted potential positions [see at least MacDonald [0042] "… the processor device 410 also includes data fusion module 130."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Eigel to use … receiving, from at least two different sources, respective pairs of a potential position of the trailing vehicle on the defined road section and a source-specific accuracy coefficient associated with the potential position, wherein a first potential position is a swarm trajectory position and wherein a first accuracy coefficient is proportional to the standard deviation formed for the swarm trajectory position, wherein the swarm trajectory position and the first accuracy coefficient being generated by the processing device … and … determining the position of the trailing vehicle by fusing the weighted potential positions as disclosed in MacDonald with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved data and guidance to effectively navigate autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. [See at least MacDonald [0058].]
As per claim 7, Eigel fails to disclose … wherein a pair of a second potential position and a source-specific accuracy coefficient associated with the second potential position is determined using a sensor assigned to the trailing vehicle or using a sensor of an infrastructure in the region of the defined road section. However, MacDonald teaches this limitation [see at least MacDonald [0038] "Mission planning module 140 utilizes the breadcrumbing navigation plot from breadcrumbing navigation module 136 and other available information to generate a commanded navigation plot."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Eigel to use … wherein a pair of a second potential position and a source-specific accuracy coefficient associated with the second potential position is determined using a sensor assigned to the trailing vehicle or using a sensor of an infrastructure in the region of the defined road section as disclosed in MacDonald with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved data and guidance to effectively navigate autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. [See at least MacDonald [0058].]
As per claim 8, regarding … determining a position of the trailing vehicle on the defined road section by performing a method as claimed in claim 4 [{See explanation for claim 4 above}].
Eigel fails to disclose … wherein controlling the trailing vehicle comprises controlling the trailing vehicle so as to drive on the road section based on the determined position of the trailing vehicle. However, MacDonald teaches this limitation [see at least Eigel [0039] "FIG. 3 schematically illustrates an exemplary data communication system within a vehicle being controlled."; [0040] "...Vehicle being controlled 300 is illustrated upon road surface 310 including lane markings 320. Vehicle 300 is illustrated including navigation controller 220, vehicle controller 230, camera device 110, and sensor device 210."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Eigel to use … wherein controlling the trailing vehicle comprises controlling the trailing vehicle so as to drive on the road section based on the determined position of the trailing vehicle as disclosed in MacDonald with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved data and guidance to effectively navigate autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. [See at least MacDonald [0058].]
As per claim 9, Eigel fails to disclose … wherein the trailing vehicle is controlled using a controller of an at least partially autonomous vehicle system or wherein an output unit of a driver assistance system outputs control specifications for controlling the trailing vehicle. However, MacDonald teaches this limitation [see at least MacDonald [0039] "FIG. 3 schematically illustrates an exemplary data communication system within a vehicle being controlled."; [0040] "...Vehicle being controlled 300 is illustrated upon road surface 310 including lane markings 320. Vehicle 300 is illustrated including navigation controller 220, vehicle controller 230, camera device 110, and sensor device 210."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Eigel to use … wherein the trailing vehicle is controlled using a controller of an at least partially autonomous vehicle system or wherein an output unit of a driver assistance system outputs control specifications for controlling the trailing vehicle as disclosed in MacDonald with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved data and guidance to effectively navigate autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. [See at least MacDonald [0058].]
As per claim 10, Eigel fails to disclose … creating a map of the defined road section containing the pars of swarm trajectory positions and the associated accuracy coefficients for each swarm trajectory position; and controlling the trailing vehicle so as to drive on the road section based on the created map. However, MacDonald teaches these limitations:
… creating a map of the defined road section containing the pars of swarm trajectory positions and the associated accuracy coefficients for each swarm trajectory position [see at least MacDonald [0038] "Mission planning module 140 utilizes the breadcrumbing navigation plot from breadcrumbing navigation module 136 and other available information to generate a commanded navigation plot."]; and
controlling the trailing vehicle so as to drive on the road section based on the created map [see at least MacDonald [0039] "FIG. 3 schematically illustrates an exemplary data communication system within a vehicle being controlled."; [0040] "...Vehicle being controlled 300 is illustrated upon road surface 310 including lane markings 320. Vehicle 300 is illustrated including navigation controller 220, vehicle controller 230, camera device 110, and sensor device 210."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Eigel to use … creating a map of the defined road section containing the pars of swarm trajectory positions and the associated accuracy coefficients for each swarm trajectory position; and controlling the trailing vehicle so as to drive on the road section based on the created map as disclosed in MacDonald with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved data and guidance to effectively navigate autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. [See at least MacDonald [0058].]
As per claim 11, Eigel discloses … creating a map of the defined road section containing the pairs of swarm trajectory positions and the associated accuracy coefficients for each swarm trajectory position [see at least Eigel [0050] "It may be provided that the trajectory stipulation 102 is a mean trajectory of the detected trajectories 101, wherein for example an averaging of the detected trajectories 101 takes place and/or the deviation zone is calculated using the standard deviation of the detected trajectories 101."; [0051] "the computing unit 302 is suitable for ascertaining a trajectory stipulation 102 from the detected trajectories 101 and a deviation zone 110 on the basis of a deviation of at least individual detected trajectories 101 from the trajectory stipulation 102. On the basis of the trajectory stipulation 102 and the deviation zone 110, the computing unit 302 then determines a route stipulation 100."]
Eigel fails to disclose … controlling a trailing vehicle so as to drive the road section based on the created map; and determining a position of the trailing vehicle on the defined road section; wherein controlling the trailing vehicle comprises controlling the trailing vehicle so as to drive on the road section based on the determined position of the trailing vehicle. However, MacDonald teaches these limitations:
… controlling a trailing vehicle so as to drive the road section based on the created map [see at least MacDonald [0039] "FIG. 3 schematically illustrates an exemplary data communication system within a vehicle being controlled."; [0040] "...Vehicle being controlled 300 is illustrated upon road surface 310 including lane markings 320. Vehicle 300 is illustrated including navigation controller 220, vehicle controller 230, camera device 110, and sensor device 210."]; and
determining a position of the trailing vehicle on the defined road section [see at least MacDonald FIG. 6; [0028] "FIG. 6 graphically illustrates exemplary positional data collected regarding a swarm of vehicles including a CIPV target through a time span, in accordance with the present disclosure."];
wherein controlling the trailing vehicle comprises controlling the trailing vehicle so as to drive on the road section based on the determined position of the trailing vehicle [see at least MacDonald [0039] "FIG. 3 schematically illustrates an exemplary data communication system within a vehicle being controlled."; [0040] "...Vehicle being controlled 300 is illustrated upon road surface 310 including lane markings 320. Vehicle 300 is illustrated including navigation controller 220, vehicle controller 230, camera device 110, and sensor device 210."; [0039] "...Navigational controller 220 includes a computerized processor and programmed code operable to create a commanded navigation plot useful to navigate the vehicle being controlled over a road surface around the vehicle."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Eigel to use … controlling a trailing vehicle so as to drive the road section based on the created map; and determining a position of the trailing vehicle on the defined road section; wherein controlling the trailing vehicle comprises controlling the trailing vehicle so as to drive on the road section based on the determined position of the trailing vehicle as disclosed in MacDonald with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved data and guidance to effectively navigate autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. [See at least MacDonald [0058].]
As per claim 12, {see the explanation for claim 1 above.}
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668