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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 29 June 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claim objection regarding claims 1-3, and 6 have been overcome in view of the amendment.
Claim rejection under 35 USC 101 regarding claims 1-10 and 12-15 have been overcome in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 29 June 2026 has been fully considered but is moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by the Applicant’s amendment. However, the Examiner would like to note the following arguments:
Applicant’s argument:
“In particular, claim 1 has been amended to remove contingent language and now requires "determining, based on the comparison and the calibrated odometer parameters, an updated position and heading of the vehicle for use in vehicle localization." While Bartels may disclose comparing predicted motion to GPS measurements and calibrating sensor-related parameters, Bartels uses GPS as the primary localization reference and does not disclose or suggest determining the claimed "updated position and heading" based on "the comparison and the calibrated odometer parameters." See Bartels, para. [0016].
For these reasons, Bartels fails to disclose the limitations of amended claim 1. Accordingly, Bartels does not anticipate the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Due to their dependency, claims 4-5, 8-10, 12-13, and 15 are also not anticipated by Bartels for at least the same reasons.”
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner acknowledges and agrees that claim 1 has been amended to remove contingent language.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Bartels uses GPS as the primary localization reference and does not disclose or suggest determining the claimed "updated position and heading" based on "the comparison and the calibrated odometer parameters", the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed by Bartels, based on a comparison result, candidates for the calibration parameters may be calculated and, based thereon, the second path can be re-calculated [See Bartels, para. 0011]. Bartels discloses that the odometer parameters are calculated and calibrated. The calibrated odometer then outputs the second travel path. The second travel path is based on calibrated dead reckoning sensor data [See Bartels’s disclosure, para. 0039]. Bartels discloses substantially all limitations of claim 1, i.e., a computer-implemented method comprising: in real time, performing the steps of: obtaining vehicle motion data from at least one vehicle sensor of a vehicle; obtaining, from a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), GNSS data of a positioning of the vehicle,
Furthermore, the remaining arguments are unpersuasive, as they are merely based on Applicant’s assertion that Bartels lacks the recited limitation, and that the dependent claims are patentable due to their dependency from amended independent claim 1. Therefore, no other response from the Examiner is put forth at this time. Claims 2-10 and 12-15 are further rejected as detailed in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites “the GNSS device” which is suggested to be amended to “[[the]]a GNSS device”. Additionally, claim 13 recites “the at least one sensor” which is suggested to be amended to “the at least one vehicle sensor”.
Claim 14 recites “the at least one sensor” which is suggested to be amended to “the at least one vehicle sensor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartels (US 2013/0297204 A1 previously cited “BARTELS”), in view of McBurney et al. (US 2011/0184644 A1 newly cited “MCBURNEY”).
Regarding claim 1, BARTELS discloses (Examiner’s note: What BARTELS does not disclose is ) a computer-implemented method comprising: in real time, performing the steps of:
obtaining vehicle motion data from at least one vehicle sensor of a vehicle (the dead reckoning positioning sensors 1000 comprise an odometer 1000a for sensing a covered distance d and a gyroscope 1000b for sensing an angular velocity ω of a vehicle during travel [0032]); (the sensor data may comprise at least one of odometer data and gyroscope data. The odometer data are indicative of a covered distance d during travel, and the gyroscope data are indicative of an angular velocity ω [0014])
obtaining, from a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), GNSS data of a positioning of the vehicle, the position sensor 1010 is configured as absolute position sensor providing absolute coordinate positions of the vehicle during travel on basis of the signal runtimes of radio signals received from at least three satellites [0035]); (the comparing unit 1050 generates a first travel path based on the absolute position data [0039])
calibrating, the calibration unit 1040 calculates the calibration parameters f, g, Vbias on basis of comparison results of the comparing unit 1050. Using the calculated calibration parameters the calibration unit 1040 further calibrates the odometer and gyroscope data, i.e., it transforms the odometer data N and gyroscope data V into distances d and angular velocities ω [0038]), wherein the calibrating comprises:
predicting, based on a current calibration of the odometer parameters and on the vehicle motion data, a predicted distance variation and a predicted orientation variation (the comparing unit 1050 is in communication with the calibration unit 1040, from which it receives the calibrated or pre-calibrated distance values d and change of direction values Δφ [0039])
and comparing the predicted distance variation and the predicted orientation variation with the distance variation and the orientation variation of the GNSS data (the comparing unit 1050 is in communication with the calibration unit 1040, from which it receives the calibrated or pre-calibrated distance values d and change of direction values Δφ. At the same time, the comparing unit 1040 receives absolute position data from the position sensor 1010 via the storage unit 1020. The comparing unit 1050 generates a first travel path based on the absolute position data and a second travel path based on the calibrated or pre-calibrated sensor data. It further compares the shape of both travel paths and reports the evaluated comparing results back to the calibration unit 1040 [0039])
and determining, based on the comparison and the calibrated parameters of the odometer, an updated position and heading of the vehicle for use in vehicle localization (based on a comparison result, candidates for the calibration parameters may be calculated and, based thereon, the second path can be re-calculated [0011])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, MCBURNEY teaches that information from the non-steering left and right wheels wheel-tick sensors 124 and 126 is used to derive the basic delta-range and delta-heading of vehicle 110 [0033]. GPS receiver 104 or 302 can provide accurate measurements of delta-range, delta-heading, and absolute heading, albeit only when its reception of satellite transmissions is not being interrupted [0048]. The “delta” term signifies how the heading, or direction, of a vehicle 110 has changed over time, and how the range, or distance has changed over the same period [0021]. Furthermore, MCBURNEY teaches that dead-reckoning and GPS information are combined inside the main position/velocity Kalman Filter. The dead-reckoning measurements of delta-range and delta-heading are combined directly with GPS Doppler and pseudorange measurements [0110].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BARTELS to include the teachings of MCBURNEY, because doing so would improve system overall performance and accuracy while enabling combined GPS and inertial navigation system to share information and help each other, as recognized by MCBURNEY.
Regarding claim 9, BARTELS/ MCBURNEY discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is a motorbike, a car, a bus or a truck (the device 100 may be part of a built-in vehicle navigation system (of, e.g., a car or plane) [BARTELS 0030]).
Regarding claim 10, BARTELS/ MCBURNEY discloses a non-transient computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer system, cause the system to perform the method of claim 1 (the device 100 comprises a storage unit 1020, a Central Processing Unit (CPU) 1030 [BARTELS 0031]).
Regarding claim 12, BARTELS/ MCBURNEY discloses a system comprising a processor coupled to a memory, wherein the memory has recorded thereon the computer program of claim 10 (the device 100 comprises a storage unit 1020, a Central Processing Unit (CPU) 1030 [BARTELS 0031], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10).
Regarding claim 13, BARTELS/ MCBURNEY discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the system is coupled with or further comprises the GNSS device, the odometer, and the at least one sensor (the device 100 comprises dead reckoning positioning sensors 1000, a position sensor 1010 (e.g., a GPS sensor), a storage unit 1020, a Central Processing Unit (CPU) 1030 [BARTELS 0031]); (the dead reckoning positioning sensors 1000 comprise an odometer 1000a for sensing a covered distance d and a gyroscope 1000b for sensing an angular velocity ω of a vehicle during travel [BARTELS 0032], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, BARTELS/ MCBURNEY discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the at least one sensor includes a wheel sensor, an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), and a steering system sensor (the dead reckoning positioning sensors 1000 comprise an odometer 1000a for sensing a covered distance d and a gyroscope 1000b for sensing an angular velocity ω of a vehicle during travel [0032]).
Regarding claim 15, BARTELS/ MCBURNEY discloses a vehicle equipped with the system according to claim 12 (the device 100 may be part of a built-in vehicle navigation system (of, e.g., a car or plane) [BARTELS 0030]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARTELS, in view of MCBURNEY, and further in view of Barfoot et al. (US 2007/0027612 A1 previously cited “BARFOOT”).
Regarding claim 2, BARTELS/ MCBURNEY discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, BARFOOT teaches that once the initial position and orientation estimate 802 has been determined, the system is prepared to move through the passageway environment 801 and a dead-reckoned estimate of the vehicle's position and orientation is obtained by using the odometric sensor(s) [0123]. Additionally, BARFOOT discloses means for repeatedly determining the global position and orientation of the system, in real time, as it is propelled through said passageway environment, using said one or more odometric sensors [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BARTELS to include the teachings of BARFOOT, because doing so would enable generation of a route plan for vehicles and avoid collisions between vehicles, as recognized by BARFOOT. In addition, both of the prior art references, BARTELS and BARFOOT, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, real-time localization provided by employing dead-reckoning sensors.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARTELS, in view of MCBURNEY, and BARFOOT, and further in view of King et al. (US 2020/0211394 A1 previously cited “KING”).
Regarding claim 3, BARTELS/ MCBURNEY/ BARFOOT discloses the method of claim 2, the dead reckoning positioning sensors 1000 comprise a gyroscope 1000b for sensing an angular velocity ω of a vehicle during travel [BARTELS 0032]).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, KING teaches to process the sensor data 120 to detect objects around the autonomous vehicle 102, track the objects over time, and/or predict trajectories for the objects. A track of an object may include a path traveled by the object (e.g., previous states—positions, orientations, velocities, etc., as well as center locations, extents, etc., and/or uncertainties associated therewith). A track of an object may represent (or be based on) a current or previous position, velocity, acceleration, orientation, and/or heading of the object over a period of time (e.g., 5 seconds) [0034]. The sensor data 114 may include data from a wide variety of the sensor(s) 104, such as location data, inertial data, LIDAR data, RADAR data, image data, audio data, environmental data, depth data, etc. [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BARTELS to include the teachings of KING, because doing so would enable the vehicle to obtain data that would improve control of the vehicle and accuracy of collision detection, as recognized by KING. In addition, both of the prior art references, BARTELS and KING, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, vehicle localization using sensors.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARTELS, in view of MCBURNEY, and further in view of Kameoka et al. (US 2022/0082390 A1 newly cited “KAMEOKA”).
Regarding claim 4, BARTELS/ MCBURNEY discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, KAMEOKA teaches a vehicle speed scale factor, a yaw rate scale factor, and a yaw rate bias [0133]. Estimated values sve, sγe, and bγe of respective sv, sγ, and bγ are estimated as sensor errors. The sensor correction unit 14 corrects the sensor value of the autonomous sensor 6 [0107].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BARTELS to include the teachings of KAMEOKA, because doing so would provide a vehicle positioning device in which positioning accuracy can be maintained and situations where positioning can be continued are increased, as recognized by KAMEOKA.
Regarding claim 5, BARTELS/ MCBURNEY/ KAMEOKA discloses the method of claim 4, wherein calibrating parameters includes correcting one or any combination of the vehicle speed scaling, the vehicle yaw rate scaling, and the vehicle yaw rate offset (estimated values sve, sγe, and bγe of respective sv, sγ, and bγ are estimated as sensor errors. The sensor correction unit 14 corrects the sensor value of the autonomous sensor 6 [KAMEOKA 0107], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 4).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARTELS, in view of MCBURNEY, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0180485 A1 previously cited “KIM”).
Regarding claim 6, BARTELS/ MCBURNEY discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle motion data stems from a wheel sensor, an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) (the dead reckoning positioning sensors 1000 comprise an odometer 1000a for sensing a covered distance d and a gyroscope 1000b for sensing an angular velocity ω of a vehicle during travel [BARTELS 0032], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, KIM teaches that the sensing unit 120 may sense a status of the vehicle. The sensing unit 120 may include a posture sensor (e.g., a yaw sensor, a roll sensor, a pitch sensor, etc.), a collision sensor, a wheel sensor, a speed sensor, a tilt sensor, a weight-detecting sensor, a heading sensor, a gyro sensor, a position module, a vehicle forward/backward movement sensor, a battery sensor, a fuel sensor, a tire sensor, a steering sensor by a turn of a handle, a vehicle internal temperature sensor, a vehicle internal humidity sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, an illumination sensor, an accelerator position sensor, a brake pedal position sensor, and the like [0231].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BARTELS to include the teachings of KIM, because doing so would enable accurate and stable localization of the vehicle, as recognized by KIM. In addition, both of the prior art references, BARTELS and KIM, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, sensors equipped on vehicles for localization and status sensing.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARTELS, in view MCBURNEY, and further in view of Kasargod et al. (US 2013/0116921 A1 previously cited “KASARGOD”).
Regarding claim 7, BARTELS discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the GNSS data further includes a location and heading of the vehicle (the position sensor 1010 is configured as absolute position sensor providing absolute coordinate positions of the vehicle during travel on basis of the signal runtimes of radio signals received from at least three satellites [BARTELS 0035], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); (the comparing unit 1050 generates a first travel path based on the absolute position data [BARTELS 0039], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, KASARGOD teaches that the GPE 115 also uses the position and velocity from the DRE 120 to get an initial ‘rough’ estimate of its position and velocity at a particular time instant. In the context of the Kalman Filter, this could mean using the position and velocity estimate of the DRE 120 as the predicted state of the filter. The position and velocity are then subsequently refined using the GNSS measurements which are sent to the Kalman Filter [0015]. In situations where there is complete loss of GNSS signal (such as in tunnels) or where the GPE 115 finds that its position and/or velocity estimate are very unreliable, the GPE is configured to replace its position and velocity estimate with the corresponding estimates from the dead reckoning engine (DRE) 120 [0016]. Furthermore, KASARGOD discloses increasing the position uncertainty by a fraction of a distance travelled along a road segment comprises calculating the fraction by calibrating a wheel tick sensor that provides a speed input [claim 12]. Examiner’s note: Claim 7 recites a method. Limitation “when the GNSS signal is available, determining a localization of the vehicle by performing a data fusion that is based on a Kalman filter that predicts the vehicle localization based on a fusion of the location and heading of the GNSS data and a location and heading predicted according to the calibrated odometer parameters; when the GNSS signal is lost, determining a localization of the vehicle based on a location and heading predicted according to the calibrated odometer parameters” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “determining a localization of the vehicle by performing a data fusion that is based on a Kalman filter that predicts the vehicle localization based on a fusion of the location and heading of the GNSS data and a location and heading predicted according to the calibrated odometer parameters”) if a first condition (i.e. “when the GNSS signal is available”) happens; and step B (i.e. “determining a localization of the vehicle based on a location and heading predicted according to the calibrated odometer parameters”) if a second condition (i.e. “when the GNSS signal is lost”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BARTELS to include the teachings of KASARGOD, because doing so would provide a high degree of positioning accuracy in a wide range of navigation scenarios, as recognized by KASARGOD. In addition, both of the prior art references, BARTELS and KASARGOD, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, vehicle navigation and localization.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARTELS, in view of MCBURNEY, and further in view of Shen et al. (US 2018/0017390 A1 newly cited “SHEN”).
Regarding claim 8, BARTELS/ MCBURNEY discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SHEN teaches a GNSS-INS vehicle attitude determination method based on a single antenna [0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BARTELS to include the teachings of SHEN, because doing so would combine the advantages of the short-term high precision of the IMU gyroscope and the long-term high stability of the GNSS single antenna, so as to avoid the divergence phenomenon which occurs when using gyroscope and reduce the noise level of the GNSS attitude determination, as recognized by SHEN.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hollenstein (US 2012/0116712 A1 previously cited) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of the sensor measurements used in combination with GNSS measurements where such are available, e.g., by feeding both to a tightly coupled Kalman filter.
Ando et al. (US 2013/0245936 A1 previously cited) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure of a moving body position detection system including an unit acquiring dead reckoning navigation information including a moving body direction; a unit identifying a moving body position based on the dead reckoning navigation information on the moving body; a unit predicting a predicted arrived position of the moving body after a predetermined interval from the position of the moving body based on the dead reckoning navigation information on the moving body; a unit calculating a difference direction angle between a direction from the position of the moving body to the predicted position and the direction of the moving body; a unit correcting the difference direction angle if it is equal to or larger than a threshold; and a unit updating the moving body position based on the difference direction angle.
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 HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 September 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights