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.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-3, and 6 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “based on a current calibration of the odometer parameters and on the motion data” which is suggested to be amended to “based on a current calibration of the odometer parameters and on the vehicle motion data” for clarity. Claim 1 additionally recites “the predicted distance variation and predicted orientation variation” which is suggested to be amended to “the predicted distance variation and the predicted orientation variation” for clarity.
Claim 2 recites “the motion data” which is suggested to be amended to “the vehicle motion data” for clarity.
Claim 3 recites “the motion data” which is suggested to be amended to “the vehicle motion data” for clarity.
Claim 6 recites “the motion data” which is suggested to be amended to “the vehicle motion data” for clarity.
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 1-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system and a method and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim(s) 1:
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method for localization of a moving vehicle based on GNSS data and vehicle sensor data, the method comprising, in real-time: obtaining: vehicle motion data stemming from at least one vehicle sensor, and while the GNSS signal is available, GNSS data of a positioning of the vehicle, including a distance variation and an orientation variation, and calibrating parameters of an odometer of the vehicle based on a data fusion that uses a Kalman filter that determines a predicted distance variation and a predicted orientation variation of the vehicle based on a current calibration of the odometer parameters and on the motion data, and that compares the predicted distance variation and predicted orientation variation to the distance variation and the orientation variation of the GNSS data.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim is directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and is eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. Claim 1 recites “A computer-implemented method for localization of a moving vehicle based on GNSS data and vehicle sensor data, the method comprising, in real-time: obtaining: vehicle motion data stemming from at least one vehicle sensor, and while the GNSS signal is available, GNSS data of a positioning of the vehicle, including a distance variation and an orientation variation, and calibrating parameters of an odometer of the vehicle based on a data fusion that uses a Kalman filter that determines a predicted distance variation and a predicted orientation variation of the vehicle based on a current calibration of the odometer parameters and on the motion data, and that compares the predicted distance variation and predicted orientation variation to the distance variation and the orientation variation of the GNSS data.”
The focus of the claim is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, spatial relationships, geometry). When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, it is simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the limitation “while the GNSS signal is available, GNSS data of a positioning of the vehicle, including a distance variation and an orientation variation, and calibrating parameters of an odometer of the vehicle based on a data fusion that uses a Kalman filter that determines a predicted distance variation and a predicted orientation variation of the vehicle based on a current calibration of the odometer parameters and on the motion data, and that compares the predicted distance variation and predicted orientation variation to the distance variation and the orientation variation of the GNSS data” contains contingent claim language. 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.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation(s) of “at least one vehicle sensor” and “a vehicle” represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic devices, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). The additional limitation(s) represent no more than mere attempt to recite a field in which the device is intended to be applied.
Furthermore, the limitation “while the GNSS signal is available, GNSS data of a positioning of the vehicle, including a distance variation and an orientation variation, and calibrating parameters of an odometer of the vehicle based on a data fusion that uses a Kalman filter that determines a predicted distance variation and a predicted orientation variation of the vehicle based on a current calibration of the odometer parameters and on the motion data, and that compares the predicted distance variation and predicted orientation variation to the distance variation and the orientation variation of the GNSS data” contains contingent claim language. If the condition for performing a contingent step (i.e., “while the GNSS signal is available”) 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.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1.
The limitation(s) are recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional. The additional recitation(s) do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation(s) are at a high level of generality and are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1 and does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 1 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim 1 is ineligible.
Claims 2-10 and 12-15:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 2-10 and 12-15 recite a series of steps and therefore, fall under a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 3-10 and 12-15 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same or sufficiently similar defects as those noted for claim 2 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the device of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 12-15 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-10, 12-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bartels (US 2013/0297204 A1 “BARTELS”).
Regarding claim 1, BARTELS discloses a computer-implemented method for localization of a moving vehicle based on GNSS data and vehicle sensor data (the device 100 comprises dead reckoning positioning sensors 1000, a position sensor 1010 (e.g., a GPS sensor) [0031]), the method comprising, in real-time:
obtaining:
vehicle motion data stemming from at least one vehicle sensor (the dead reckoning positioning sensors 1000 comprise an odometer 1000 a for sensing a covered distance d and a gyroscope 1000 b for sensing an angular velocity ω of a vehicle during travel [0032])
and while the GNSS signal is available, GNSS data of a positioning of the vehicle, including a distance variation and an orientation variation (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]). Examiner’s note: Claim 1 recites a method. Limitation “obtaining: while the GNSS signal is available, GNSS data of a positioning of the vehicle, including a distance variation and an orientation variation” 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. “obtaining […] GNSS data of a positioning of the vehicle, including a distance variation and an orientation variation”) if a first condition (i.e. “while the GNSS signal is available”) 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.
and calibrating parameters of an odometer of the vehicle based on a data fusion that uses a Kalman filter that determines a predicted distance variation and a predicted orientation variation of the vehicle based on a current calibration of the odometer parameters and on the motion data, and that compares the predicted distance variation and predicted orientation variation to the distance variation and the orientation variation of the GNSS data (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]). Examiner’s note: Claim 1 recites a method. Limitation “calibrating parameters of an odometer of the vehicle based on a data fusion that uses a Kalman filter that determines a predicted distance variation and a predicted orientation variation of the vehicle based on a current calibration of the odometer parameters and on the motion data, and that compares the predicted distance variation and predicted orientation variation to the distance variation and the orientation variation of the GNSS data” is part of a contingent step. 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. “calibrating parameters of an odometer of the vehicle based on a data fusion that uses a Kalman filter that determines a predicted distance variation and a predicted orientation variation of the vehicle based on a current calibration of the odometer parameters and on the motion data, and that compares the predicted distance variation and predicted orientation variation to the distance variation and the orientation variation of the GNSS data”) if a first condition (i.e. “while the GNSS signal is available”) 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. If the first condition (“while the GNSS signal is available”) is not satisfied, the step of obtaining the distance variation and the orientation variation needs not be carried out. The calibration of the odometer would also need not be carried out because the calibration is based on comparing the predicted distance variation and predicted orientation variation to the distance variation and the orientation variation of the GNSS data.
Regarding claim 4, BARTELS discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the parameters of the odometer include: a vehicle speed scaling, a vehicle yaw rate scaling, and a vehicle yaw rate offset (it 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, respectively [0038]). Examiner’s note: Claim 4 recites a method. Limitation “wherein the parameters of the odometer include: a vehicle speed scaling, a vehicle yaw rate scaling, and a vehicle yaw rate offset” is part of a contingent step. 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, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied (i.e., “while the GNSS signal is available”), 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. If the first condition (“while the GNSS signal is available”) is not satisfied, the step of the calibration of the odometer would also need not be carried out.
Regarding claim 5, BARTELS 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 (it 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, respectively [0038]). Examiner’s note: Claim 5 recites a method. Limitation “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” is part of a contingent step. 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, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied (i.e., “while the GNSS signal is available”), 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. If the first condition (“while the GNSS signal is available”) is not satisfied, the step of the calibration of the odometer would also need not be carried out.
Regarding claim 8, BARTELS discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the GNSS data stems from a GNSS device that comprises only one antenna (a position sensor 1010 (e.g., a GPS sensor) [0031]). Examiner’s note: Claim 8 recites a method. Limitation “wherein the GNSS data stems from a GNSS device that comprises only one antenna” is part of a contingent step. 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, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied (i.e., “while the GNSS signal is available”), 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. If the first condition (“while the GNSS signal is available”) is not satisfied, the step of obtaining of the GNSS data would also need not be carried out.
Regarding claim 9, BARTELS 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) [0030]).
Regarding claim 10, BARTELS 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 [0031]).
Regarding claim 12, BARTELS 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 [0031]).
Regarding claim 13, BARTELS 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 [0031]); (the dead reckoning positioning sensors 1000 comprise an odometer 1000 a for sensing a covered distance d and a gyroscope 1000 b for sensing an angular velocity ω of a vehicle during travel [0032]).
Regarding claim 15, BARTELS 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) [0030]).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARTELS, in view of Barfoot et al. (US 2007/0027612 A1 “BARFOOT”).
Regarding claim 2, BARTELS discloses (Examiner’s note: What BARTELS does not disclose is ) 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 BARFOOT, and further in view of King et al. (US 2020/0211394 A1 “KING”).
Regarding claim 3, BARTELS/ BARFOOT discloses the method of claim 2, the dead reckoning positioning sensors 1000 comprise a gyroscope 1000 b for sensing an angular velocity ω of a vehicle during travel [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 120 includes a subset of the sensor data 114. To illustrate, 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) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARTELS, in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0180485 A1 “KIM”).
Regarding claim 6, BARTELS discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the motion data stems from a wheel sensor, an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) (the dead reckoning positioning sensors 1000 comprise an odometer 1000 a for sensing a covered distance d and a gyroscope 1000 b for sensing an angular velocity ω of a vehicle during travel [0032]),
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.
Regarding claim 14, BARTELS discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the at least one sensor includes a wheel sensor, an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) (the dead reckoning positioning sensors 1000 comprise an odometer 1000 a for sensing a covered distance d and a gyroscope 1000 b for sensing an angular velocity ω of a vehicle during travel [0032]),
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARTELS, in view of Kasargod et al. (US 2013/0116921 A1 “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 [0035]); (the comparing unit 1050 generates a first travel path based on the absolute position data [0039]),
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 1 recites a method. Limitation “wherein the GNSS data further includes a location and heading of the vehicle, and wherein the method further comprises, in real-time: 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hollenstein (US 2012/0116712 A1) 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) 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.
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, WILLIAM J KELLEHER can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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 March 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights