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
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment/response of 07 November 2025.
Claim 10 has been canceled.
Claim 21 has been newly added.
Claims 1-9, and 11-21 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C.101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argued:
claim l's "determining," "sending," "receiving," and "correcting" steps are not bare mental acts; they are expressly tied to specific computer apparatuses and to processing and applying granular "map topology information" for an area, including roads and buildings and their topology relationships. The specification details that "map topology information" includes road coordinate point information, road widths, and connection relationships among multiple roads, as well as building topology with coordinate point information and inter-building relationships. Correcting positioning based on such structured, area-scale topological datasets and device sensor-derived positioning information is the kind of dataintensive, sensor-fusion computation that cannot "practically be performed in the human mind." In other words, while a person could form a rough opinion about a car's location using a paper map, the claim requires the apparatus to ingest and process topology data structures and algorithmically adjust coordinates to yield "second positioning information," which is far beyond a human's mental capacity in practical terms. The memo's reminder against over-expanding the mental process category fits this situation: these are computer-executed operations on complex topological data, not mental observations, evaluations, or opinions.
The memo also distinguishes claims that merely "involve" an exception from those that "recite" one. The memo states that "examiners should be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) from claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible ... )." Here, claim 1 does not set forth any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or named algorithms. It uses topology data as inputs for computer processing to correct device positioning. That is, the claim may "involve" mathematical processing inherent in computer-based correction, but it does not "recite" a mathematical concept or a mental process.
Even if one were to assume that claim 1 "recites" an abstract idea, the claim as a whole integrates the alleged exception into a practical application. The memo emphasizes that Prong Two requires an analysis "of the claim as a whole," considering how additional elements "use or interact with the exception" and recognizing that an improvement to computer capabilities or to another technology or technical field renders claims eligible. The memo explains that an "important consideration" is whether a claim "covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome," and encourages examiners to consult the specification to confirm the improvement. In this light, claim 1 reflects a particular technical solution to a concrete technological problem of correcting GNSSderived device positioning in environments subject to errors (e.g., urban canyons, multipath) by employing road and building topology data for a defined area, with the first apparatus obtaining source positioning, the second apparatus supplying the area's topology, and the first apparatus performing correction to yield second positioning information… Given claim l's specific, topology-based correction steps that cannot practically be done in the human mind, its particularized architectural constraints, and its improvement to the technical field of positioning/navigation, any doubt should weigh against a 101 rejection under this standard… The claim as a whole is not merely an abstract idea, but a concrete and innovative process for privacy-preserving, high-precision positioning correction. Independent claim 11 is a system claim including limitations similar to those found in claim 1 and, therefore is directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least the same reasons that independent claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 3 5 U.S. C. § 101.
The Examiner’s response:
Applicant asserts “claim l's "determining," "sending," "receiving," and "correcting" steps are not bare mental acts; they are expressly tied to specific computer apparatuses and to processing and applying granular "map topology information" for an area, including roads and buildings and their topology relationships. The specification details that "map topology information" includes road coordinate point information, road widths, and connection relationships among multiple roads, as well as building topology with coordinate point information and inter-building relationships. Correcting positioning based on such structured, area-scale topological datasets and device sensor-derived positioning information is the kind of dataintensive, sensor-fusion computation that cannot "practically be performed in the human mind." In other words, while a person could form a rough opinion about a car's location using a paper map, the claim requires the apparatus to ingest and process topology data structures and algorithmically adjust coordinates to yield "second positioning information," which is far beyond a human's mental capacity in practical terms… Here, claim 1 does not set forth any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or named algorithms. It uses topology data as inputs for computer processing to correct device positioning. That is, the claim may "involve" mathematical processing inherent in computer-based correction, but it does not "recite" a mathematical concept or a mental process.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner submits the “specific computer apparatuses” (e.g. first apparatus and a second apparatus) are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea. The recited “first apparatus” and “second apparatus” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Further, applicant asserts “Correcting positioning based on such structured, area-scale topological datasets and device sensor-derived positioning information is the kind of dataintensive, sensor-fusion computation that cannot "practically be performed in the human mind." The Examiner notes that applicant arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Furthermore, the “determining…” and “correcting…” steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. Regarding the “sending…” and “receiving…” steps are recited at a high-level of generality and directed to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and outputting data. The analysis for the “sending…” and “receiving…” steps are under step 2A prong 2 and not step 2A prong 1.
Additionally, applicant asserts “Even if one were to assume that claim 1 "recites" an abstract idea, the claim as a whole integrates the alleged exception into a practical application. The memo emphasizes that Prong Two requires an analysis "of the claim as a whole," considering how additional elements "use or interact with the exception" and recognizing that an improvement to computer capabilities or to another technology or technical field renders claims eligible… In this light, claim 1 reflects a particular technical solution to a concrete technological problem of correcting GNSSderived device positioning in environments subject to errors (e.g., urban canyons, multipath) by employing road and building topology data for a defined area, with the first apparatus obtaining source positioning, the second apparatus supplying the area's topology, and the first apparatus performing correction to yield second positioning information… Given claim l's specific, topology-based correction steps that cannot practically be done in the human mind, its particularized architectural constraints, and its improvement to the technical field of positioning/navigation, any doubt should weigh against a 101 rejection under this standard…The claim as a whole is not merely an abstract idea, but a concrete and innovative process for privacy-preserving, high-precision positioning correction. Independent claim 11 is a system claim including limitations similar to those found in claim 1 and, therefore is directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least the same reasons that independent claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 3 5 U.S. C. § 101.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because “the improvement to the technical field of positioning/navigation” is an improved abstract idea, and cannot constitute an additional element in the claim that might integrate the abstract idea to a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Examiner notes that the rejection has been modified reflecting the amendments most recently submitted by applicant.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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 1-9, and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
The claim is directed toward a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.3.
Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recites an abstract idea. The claim recites “determining,…, first positioning information corresponding to a location of the first apparatus, wherein the location of the first apparatus is in a first area”, “correcting,…, the first positioning information based on the map topology information, to obtain second positioning information” which given their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, “determining…” and “correcting…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining a position/location of a vehicle (e.g. first apparatus) and correcting the position information/data based on map information. As such, the claim recites at least one abstract idea (mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception 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 except ion to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, for example, the claimed elements “sending, by the first apparatus, first information that identifies the first area to a second apparatus, wherein the first information comprises at least one of coordinate information, identification information, or index information of the first area”, and “receiving, by the first apparatus, map topology information of the first area from the second apparatus” are recited at a high-level of generality and is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and outputting data. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a first apparatus”, and “a second apparatus” are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea. The “first apparatus” and “second apparatus” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The components merely automate the aforementioned steps and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into a “practical application”. These additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more
than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to provide an
inventive concept in Step 2B, for example, the claimed elements “sending, by the first apparatus, first information that identifies the first area to a second apparatus, wherein the first information comprises at least one of coordinate information, identification information, or index information of the first area”, and “receiving, by the first apparatus, map topology information of the first area from the second apparatus” are well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the art. See MPEP 2106.05(d), II, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);”.
As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements of “a first apparatus”, and “a second apparatus” are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea. Further, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 11 and 20 , claim 11 recites an apparatus and claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, both of which fall within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claims 11 and 20 recite similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 1. Hence, the claim is not eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Claims 2-9, 12-19 , and 21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their dependency to the independent claims.
Claims 2-9, 12-19, and 21 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application, because the additional elements are directed toward
additional aspects of judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional
additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the limitations of claims 2-3 further the abstract idea.
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under similar rationale as their independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 11-12, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga et al. (US 20150308841 A1, cited in IDS filed on 12/20/2024 ) in view of Tyomkin et al. (WO 2019162877 A1).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly with respect to claims 11 and 20, Matsunaga et al. discloses
A positioning information processing method, comprising: determining, by a first
apparatus, (Figure 4, 11) first positioning information corresponding to a location of the first apparatus, wherein the location of the first apparatus is in a first area; ([0008] “the map display apparatus transmits equal to or greater than one current position information.”, and [0081] “As the vehicle travels, the navigation apparatus 11 moves the display position of current position mark M corresponding to the current position measured at the time. The navigation apparatus 11 displays current position mark M at a position indicated by position data (coordinate data) contained in the raster map data until the measured current position deviates from area S.” and [0037] “The position measuring portion 13 corresponds to a current position measuring processor, device, or means. The position measuring portion 13 measures a current position of the navigation apparatus 11, namely, a current position (a host vehicle position or simply a vehicle position) of a vehicle (a host vehicle) mounted with the navigation apparatus 11.”)
sending, by the first apparatus, first information
apparatus, ([0043] “The GPS information transmission processor 21 corresponds to a current position information transmission processor, device, or means. The GPS information transmission processor 21 transmits information indicating the current position measured by the position measuring portion 13, i.e., the GPS information outputted from the position measuring portion 13, to the server 31 via the communication portion 17.”, and see at least Figure 4)
receiving, by the first apparatus, map topology information of the first area from the
second apparatus; and ([0037] “The GPS information contains current position information indicating the measured current position.”, [0041] “the storage unit 15 stores vector map data and other various data such as raster map data and course data distributed from the server 31.”, [0053] “The server 31 can distribute vector map data or raster map data to the navigation apparatus 11”, and [0067] “The navigation apparatus 11 allows the GPS information transmission processor 21 to transmit GPS information to the server 31. The server 31 allows the GPS information reception processor 41a to receive the GPS information. The server 31 allows the course prediction processor 41 to predict a course based on the received GPS information. The server 31 predicts a course while referencing various types of data such as vector map data stored in the map data storage portion 34. The navigation apparatus 11 allows the course data reception processor 21a to receive the course data and stores the received course data in the course data storage portion 15b.”)
correcting, by the first apparatus, the first positioning information based on the map
topology information; to obtain second positioning information. ([0008] “The map display apparatus corrects a current position of either the map display apparatus or vehicle subsequently measured on the course specified by the received course data, and transmits corrected position information indicating a position on the course corrected (corrected position) to the server. The server specifies the corrected position based on the received corrected position information, and distributes the map data corresponding to a specified area containing the corrected position to the map display apparatus. The map display apparatus displays a map surrounding the corrected position on a screen of a display portion, based on the received map data.”, [0077] “After receiving the course data, the navigation apparatus 11 performs the simplified map matching process as in FIG. 7, which corrects current position P1 measured by the position measuring portion 13 to a position on predicted course R specified by the received course data as indicated by arrow A in FIG. 7. The navigation apparatus 11 can specify the position or the shape of predicted course Ron the screen 161 of the display portion 16 based on the course data. The navigation apparatus 11 moves current position P1 to a coordinate position overlapping with specified predicted course R and settles current position P1 as corrected position P2.”, and see at least Figure 7)
Matsunaga et al. fails to explicitly disclose sending, by the first apparatus, first information
that identifies the first area to a second apparatus, wherein the first information comprises at least one of coordinate information, identification information, or index information of the first area;
Tyomkin et al. teaches sending, by the first apparatus, (Figures 1-2, 110(a) -110(c)) first
information that identifies the first area to a second apparatus, wherein the first information comprises at least one of coordinate information, identification information, or index information of the first area; (Page 8 lines 11-14 “the storage unit 152 of the server 150 stores reference GPS information for a plurality of reference locations 101a, 101b, 101c. In this embodiment, each reference location 101a, 101b, 101c corresponds to a respective geographic area 105a, 105b, 105c.”, page 8 lines 21-25 “The reference GPS information comprises information that enables the system to calculate a set of reference GPS data for each satellite at each reference location 101a, 101b, 101c at that time. The reference GPS data is accurate GPS data for each reference location, and (as described in detail below) is used to correct GPS data received at the mobile devices within the geographic area corresponding to each reference location.”, page 9 lines 19-23 “the communication interface 151 of the server 150 receives correction GPS data from a plurality of mobile devices at the reference location 101a. The term “correction GPS data” is used herein to refer to GPS data that has been obtained by a mobile device located at a reference location in the system. Hence, the “correction GPS data” is GPS data measured by a mobile device at a reference location.”, page 9 lines 240-27 “the server 150 will receive at step S2 multiple sets of correction GPS data from a plurality of mobile devices at the reference location 101a. As a result, the server 150 will obtain multiple measurements of correction GPS data.”, page 10 lines 27-30 “the server 150 has stored for the reference location 101a (corresponding to geographic area 105a), reference GPS data for the reference location 101a, and a plurality of sets of correction GPS data obtained by a plurality of mobile devices at the reference location 101a over a certain time period.”, and etc. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify position correction system of Matsunaga et al. to incorporate location information of an area as taught by Tyomkin et al. for the purpose of providing a more accurate location determination.
Regarding claim 2, and similarly with respect to claims 12 and 21, Matsunaga et al. in view of
Tyomkin et al. discloses The method according to claim 1,
Matsunaga et al. discloses wherein the map topology information comprises road topology
information of at least one road corresponding to the first area; and (Figure 7, and [0077] “After receiving the course data, the navigation apparatus 11 performs the simplified map matching process as in FIG. 7, which corrects current position P1 measured by the position measuring portion 13 to a position on predicted course R specified by the received course data as indicated by arrow A in FIG. 7.”)
the correcting, by the first apparatus, the first positioning information further comprises:
determining, by the first apparatus, target road topology information from the road topology information, wherein the target road topology information is road topology information of a road on which the first apparatus is located; and correcting, by the first apparatus, the first positioning information based on the target road topology information; to obtain the second positioning information. ([0079] “If receiving the corrected position information from the navigation apparatus 11 (step D1: YES), the server 31 specifies corrected position P2 based on the corrected position information as in FIG. 3 (step D2). The server 31 extracts the raster map data corresponding to area S including or near corrected position P2 from the raster map data storage portion 35c or newly generates the raster map data from vector map data in the map data storage portion 34 (D3). The server 31 distributes the extracted raster map data to the navigation apparatus 11 (D4).”, and [0080] “If receiving raster map data from the server 31 (step C4: YES), the navigation apparatus 11 displays an image as a map, namely, a map image on the screen 161 of the display portion 16 based on the raster map data as in FIG. 8 (step C5). The navigation apparatus 11 displays the map near corrected position P2 and displays current position mark M positioned to corrected position P2. Corrected position P2 is positioned on predicted course R. Therefore, current position mark M is displayed so as to overlap with a road that belongs to roads on the map and is predicted as predicted course R.)
Regarding claim 7, and similarly with respect to claim 17, Matsunaga et al. in view of Tyomkin et al. discloses The method according to claim 2,
Matsunaga et al. discloses wherein the at least one road comprises at least one of the
following: wherein the at least one road comprises at least one of the following: a first road, located inside the first area; a second road, located inside the first area; a second road, wherein the second road is located outside the first area and intersecting a first road; or a third road, located outside of the first area and intersecting a second road. ([0008] “the map display apparatus transmits equal to or greater than one current position information.”, [0079] “The server 31 extracts the raster map data corresponding to area S including or near corrected position P2 from the raster map data storage portion 35c or newly generates the raster map data from vector map data in the map data storage portion 34 (D3). The server 31 distributes the extracted raster map data to the navigation apparatus 11 (D4).”, and [0081] “As the vehicle travels, the navigation apparatus 11 moves the display position of current position mark M corresponding to the current position measured at the time. The navigation apparatus 11 displays current position mark M at a position indicated by position data (coordinate data) contained in the raster map data until the measured current position deviates from area S.”), and Figure 8)
Claims 3-5, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga et al. (US 20150308841 A1, cited in IDS filed on 12/20/2024 ) in view of Tyomkin et al. (WO 2019162877 A1), and further in view of Ozawa Yuji (JP 2005207821 A).
Regarding claim 3, and similarly with respect to claim 13, Matsunaga et al. in view of
Tyomkin et al. discloses The method according to claim 2,
Matsunaga et al. discloses wherein a coordinate point of second positioning information is
located inside an area of the target road topology information ([0008] “the map display apparatus transmits equal to or greater than one current position information.”, and [0081] “As the vehicle travels, the navigation apparatus 11 moves the display position of current position mark M corresponding to the current position measured at the time. The navigation apparatus 11 displays current position mark M at a position indicated by position data (coordinate data) contained in the raster map data until the measured current position deviates from area S.”)
However, Matsunaga et al. in combination with Tyomkin et al. fails to explicitly disclose
Wherein the target road topology information comprises road width information of the road on which the first apparatus is located; and the correcting, by the first apparatus, the first positioning information further comprises: correcting, by the first apparatus, the first positioning information based on the road width information, to obtain the second positioning information ,
Ozawa Yuji teaches wherein the target road topology information comprises road width
information of the road on which the first apparatus is located; and ([0018] “the navigation device according to the present invention is created based on the storage means for storing road data including data on the position and width of the road, the position detection means for detecting the position of the vehicle and outputting the position information, and the position information.” and [0019] “the vehicle position matching method in the navigation device according to the present invention includes a step of detecting the vehicle position, and road surface data is formed using data relating to the position and width of the road stored in the storage medium. Determining whether the vehicle position is located in the data, and correcting the vehicle position in the road surface data when the vehicle position is not located in the road surface data.”) the correcting, by the first apparatus, the first positioning information further comprises: correcting, by the first apparatus, the first positioning information based on the road width information, to obtain the second positioning information, ([0019] “the vehicle position matching method in the navigation device according to the present invention includes a step of detecting the vehicle position, and road surface data is formed using data relating to the position and width of the road stored in the storage medium. Determining whether the vehicle position is located in the data, and correcting the vehicle position in the road surface data when the vehicle position is not located in the road surface data.”, [0046] “The control unit 80 performs pattern matching between the road pattern surface data T and the travel locus P (step S205). If both patterns match or have a certain degree of correlation, it is determined that the road pattern is a correct travel route (step S206). On the other hand, when the patterns do not match, another road pattern plane data is created again, and pattern matching processing is performed.”, and see at least Figure 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling
date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify position correction system of Matsunaga et al. in combination with Tyomkin et al. to incorporate road surface data (e.g. position and width of the road) as taught by Ozawa Yuji for the purpose of accurately detecting the position of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, and similarly with respect to claim 14, Matsunaga et al. in view of
Tyomkin et al. and Ozawa Yuji discloses The method according to claim 3,
Ozawa Yuji teaches wherein the correcting, by the first apparatus, the first positioning
Information further comprises: correcting, by the first apparatus, the first positioning information based on movement orientation corresponding to the first apparatus and the road width information; to obtain the second positioning information. ([0039] “As shown in FIG. 4B, the vehicle positions P1 to P4 until the vehicle enters the intersection are compared with the road surface data S1, and the vehicle positions P5 to P7 after turning left at the intersection are compared with the road surface data S2. Is done. When the vehicle position is in the road surface data, the vehicle position is not attracted to the road surface data. On the other hand, when the vehicle position deviates from the road surface data, correction is performed so that the vehicle position is within the road surface data.”, and see at least Figure 4C and 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling
date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify position correction system of Matsunaga et al. in combination with Tyomkin et al. and Ozawa Yuji to incorporate the teachings of Ozawa Yuji for the same reasons stated in the motivation statement of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, and similarly with respect to claim 15, Matsunaga et al. in view of
Tyomkin et al. discloses The method according to claim 2,
Matsunaga et al. discloses the at least one road comprises a plurality of road; the road topology information comprises a connection relationship between the plurality of roads; and ([0054] “The vector map data provides map data used for computation to display a map based on vector-form data. The vector map data contains various data needed to display a map in a vector form. The data includes: road data (road network data) containing node information indicating a node included in a road and link information connecting nodes to each other; road type data indicating a road type (e.g., information indicating road types such as national road, prefectural road, expressway, ordinary road, branch road, or main road) of each link;”)
However, Matsunaga et al. in combination with Tyomkin et al. fails to explicitly disclose the determining, by the first apparatus, the target road topology further comprises: determining, by the first apparatus, the target road topology information based on the connection relationship between the plurality of roads.
Ozawa Yuji teaches the determining, by the first apparatus, the target road topology
further comprises: determining, by the first apparatus, the target road topology information based on the connection relationship between the plurality of roads. (Figure 5A-5B, [0040] “map matching of the vehicle position to the road surface data”, [0041] “When the vehicle travels on the wide road 210, the link L1 having the closest distance and direction is selected, and the road surface data S1 is created by the link L1 and its half width. When traveling on the road 214 connected to the exit of the parking lot, the link data L2 is similarly selected and the road surface data S2 is created. The vehicle positions P1 and P2 are compared with the road surface data S1, and the vehicle positions P4 and P5 are compared with the road surface data S2. The vehicle position P3 is compared with polygon data of a parking lot…”, [0042] “As a result, when the vehicle exits the parking lot 212 and travels on the road 214, matching of the vehicle positions Q4 and Q5 to the road surface data S2 is facilitated”, and [0046] “The control unit 80 performs pattern matching between the road pattern surface data T and the travel locus P (step S205). If both patterns match or have a certain degree of correlation, it is determined that the road pattern is a correct travel route”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling
date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify position correction system of Matsunaga et al. in combination with Tyomkin et al. to incorporate road surface data as taught by Ozawa Yuji for the purpose of ensuring the vehicle is traveling on a correct trave route.
Claims 6, 8-9, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga et al. (US 20150308841 A1, cited in IDS filed on 12/20/2024 ) in view of Tyomkin et al. (WO 2019162877 A1), and further in view of Park Chul Woo (KR 20200000967 A).
Regarding claim 6, and similarly with respect to claim 16, Matsunaga et al. in view of
Tyomkin et al. discloses The method according to claim 2,
Matsunaga et al. discloses the correcting, by the first apparatus, the first positioning
information further comprising: correcting, by the first apparatus, the first positioning information based on the target road topology information, to obtain third positioning information; and ([0079] “If receiving the corrected position information from the navigation apparatus 11 (step D1: YES), the server 31 specifies corrected position P2 based on the corrected position information as in FIG. 3 (step D2). The server 31 extracts the raster map data corresponding to area S including or near corrected position P2 from the raster map data storage portion 35c or newly generates the raster map data from vector map data in the map data storage portion 34 (D3). The server 31 distributes the extracted raster map data to the navigation apparatus 11 (D4).”, and [0080] “If receiving raster map data from the server 31 (step C4: YES), the navigation apparatus 11 displays an image as a map, namely, a map image on the screen 161 of the display portion 16 based on the raster map data as in FIG. 8 (step C5). The navigation apparatus 11 displays the map near corrected position P2 and displays current position mark M positioned to corrected position P2. Corrected position P2 is positioned on predicted course R. Therefore, current position mark M is displayed so as to overlap with a road that belongs to roads on the map and is predicted as predicted course R.)
However, Matsunaga et al. in combination with Tyomkin et al. fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the map topology information further comprises: building topology information of at least one building corresponding to the first area; and correcting, by the first apparatus, the
Park Chul Woo teaches wherein the map topology information further comprises: building
topology information of at least one building corresponding to the first area; (Figure 1 – 2, [0024] “ high-precision 3D maps containing detailed information about the building can identify and cope with building information such as high-rise buildings or high-cost buildings that can cause multipaths depending on the direction of the vehicle and the location of the satellite.” and [0042] “The driving road environment may include lane (one-way, one-lane, two-lane, three-lane, etc.) information, and select a building 30 that may interfere with the communication path (CP) in consideration of the driving road environment.”)
correcting, by the first apparatus,
topology information, to obtain the second positioning information, ([0057] “the vehicle position information correction method using the high-precision map building data of the present invention described above, it is confirmed in advance that the multipath occurs due to high-rise buildings, high prices, etc., the data received from the satellite in the area where the multipath occurs By inversely calculating the position of the satellite, and by accurately calculating the position of the vehicle through the position of the inversely calculated satellite”)
wherein a coordinate point of the second positioning information is located outside an
area in which the at least one building is located. (Figure 2, [0029] “a path by an actual multipath in comparison with an actual vehicle position”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling
date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify position correction system of Matsunaga et al. in combination with Tyomkin et al. to incorporate building data as taught by Park Chul Woo for the purpose of increasing accuracy of actual positioning, reducing measurement error of GNSS technology ([0011], Park Chul Woo)
Regarding claim 8, and similarly with respect to claim 18, Matsunaga et al. in view of
Tyomkin et al. discloses The method according to claim 1,
However, Matsunaga et al. in combination with Tyomkin et al. fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the map topology information comprises: building topology information of at least one building corresponding to the first area; and the correcting, by the first apparatus, the first positioning information further comprises: correcting, by the first apparatus, the first positioning information based on the building topology information, to obtain the second positioning information, wherein a coordinate point corresponding to the second positioning information is located outside an area in which the at least one building is located.
Park Chul Woo teaches wherein the map topology information comprises: building
topology information of at least one building corresponding to the first area; (Figure 1 – 2, [0024] “ high-precision 3D maps containing detailed information about the building can identify and cope with building information such as high-rise buildings or high-cost buildings that can cause multipaths depending on the direction of the vehicle and the location of the satellite.” and [0042] “The driving road environment may include lane (one-way, one-lane, two-lane, three-lane, etc.) information, and select a building 30 that may interfere with the communication path (CP) in consideration of the driving road environment.”) and the correcting, by the first apparatus, the first positioning information further comprises: correcting, by the first apparatus, the first positioning information based on the building topology information, to obtain the second positioning information, ([0057] “the vehicle position information correction method using the high-precision map building data of the present invention described above, it is confirmed in advance that the multipath occurs due to high-rise buildings, high prices, etc., the data received from the satellite in the area where the multipath occurs By inversely calculating the position of the satellite, and by accurately calculating the position of the vehicle through the position of the inversely calculated satellite”) wherein a coordinate point corresponding to the second positioning information is located outside an area in which the at least one building is located. (Figure 2, [0029] “a path by an actual multipath in comparison with an actual vehicle position”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling
date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify position correction system of Matsunaga et al. in combination with Tyomkin et al. to incorporate building data as taught by Park Chul Woo for the purpose of increasing accuracy of actual positioning, reducing measurement error of GNSS technology ([0011], Park Chul Woo)
Regarding claim 9, and similarly with respect to claim 19 Matsunaga et al. in view of
Tyomkin et al. and Park Chul Woo discloses The method according to claim 6,
Park Chul Woo teaches wherein the at least one building comprises a plurality of buildings,
and the building topology information comprises a connection relationship between the plurality of buildings. (Figure 1 – 2, [0024] “ high-precision 3D maps containing detailed information about the building can identify and cope with building information such as high-rise buildings or high-cost buildings that can cause multipaths depending on the direction of the vehicle and the location of the satellite.” and [0042] “The driving road environment may include lane (one-way, one-lane, two-lane, three-lane, etc.) information, and select a building 30 that may interfere with the communication path (CP) in consideration of the driving road environment.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling
date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify position system of Matsunaga et al. in combination with Tyomkin et al. and Park Chul Woo to incorporate the teachings of Park Chul Woo for the same reasons stated in the motivation statement of claim 6.
Conclusion
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 MISA HUYNH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/MISA H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666