DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments received 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 3-6 as set forth below in this Office Action.
Regarding the claim eligibility, Applicant argues that (REMARKS, p.3):
PNG
media_image1.png
565
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is advised that, according to MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the Office determines claim eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 using the Alice framework. The analysis under Step 2A - Prong 1 evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Step 2A - Prong 2 asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, if necessary, Step 2B further analyzes whether or not the claim provides an Inventive Concept. That is, the claim needs to be analyzed limitation by limitation, and/or element by element, following the MPEP/2019 PEG guidelines.
In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly and giving the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to the claims, Examiner asserts that the pending claims 21-40 are directed to an abstract idea of math and mental algorithm for adjusting an estimated position and/or orientation of sensors and associated sensor data for positioning a vehicle, but without reciting any additional element that amounts to “significantly more” than the judicial exception (see detailed analyses set forth in section 4 below). In particular, Examiner asserts that the claimed math and mental algorithm, including the limitations of associating sensor data with a first voxel grid, determining a transformation associated with the first voxel grid and a second voxel grid based on a covariance associated with a voxel of the first voxel grid, encompasses merely data manipulations based on mathematical concepts (namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers) that can be performed in the human mind using mental steps/critical thinking and/or with aid of pen and paper. Although it does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely indicates that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. Nothing in the claimed math and mental algorithm reflects a qualified improvement or any inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05). At most, the pending claims recite an improved mathematical algorithm, and an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG.
It is held that simply setting forth advantages (i.e. benefits) of use without providing any rational/evidence to how/why the claimed elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception could be treated as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), but not qualified for an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. The key is to show that the claim goes beyond just performing a calculation and provides a practical application or significant improvement through the use of that calculation. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(a).
Further, the claimed additional limitations of “one or more processors” are recited at a high level of generality. The inclusion of these additional elements in the claim, under its BRI, covers merely performance of the abstract idea (math + mental) in the mind or with pen/paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitation of “receive first sensor data associated with a first position and a first orientation” reads on merely a step of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. The amended limitation of “based at least in part on the transformation, one or more of: control operation of a vehicle, or generate a map for transmitting to a second vehicle, …”, under its BRI, reflects an insignificant post solution activity and/or a field of use of the output from identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). None of the claimed additional elements can be considered to be qualified for meaningful limitations to integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)) or amount to “significantly more” or an “inventive concept” (see MPEP 2106.05). At most, they generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, p.5):
PNG
media_image2.png
165
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A - Prong 1, Examiner evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. With the BRI to the claim, Examiner asserts that each or the combination of the claim limitations including “associate the first sensor data with a first voxel grid; determine a covariance associated with a voxel of the first voxel grid; determine, based on the covariance, a transformation associated with the first voxel grid and a second voxel grid ” encompasses mathematical concepts that can be performed in the human mind using mental steps/critical thinking and/or with aid of pen and paper. For example, “associate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally or manually matching up or transforming the first sensor data with/into the corresponding data in a voxel grid/space based on math concepts/relationships. Note: mental steps or basic critical thinking can be done with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III). The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, p.5):
PNG
media_image3.png
214
653
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in detail in section 4 below, the limitations in question are treated as “additional elements” to the identified judicial exception. The limitation of “receive first sensor data associated with a first position and a first orientation” reads on merely a step of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea (see the USPTO’s July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples e.g., Example 46, Claim 3), and the limitation of “based at least in part on the transformation, one or more of: control operation of a vehicle, or generate a map for transmitting to a second vehicle, …” is an insignificant post solution activity and/or a field of use of the output from identified judicial exception. Such a post solution activity encompasses merely instructions to apply a judicial exception for an intended use or to link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment but without improving the vehicles, the computers, networks, or communications. It neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A nor provides an inventive concept under Step 2B. See Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (claims to generating tasks based on rules to be completed upon the occurrence of an event recited an abstract idea and its implementation on a generic computer without any meaningful limitations to the concept did not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application). See also MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
The rest of the Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim eligibility are reliant upon the issues discussed above or have been fully addressed by the analyses as set forth in section 4 below in this Office Action.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 102, Applicant argues (REMARKS, p.11-12):
PNG
media_image4.png
287
657
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image5.png
175
663
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner reminds to the Applicant that during patent examination, the pending claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. See MPEP 2111.01. Moreover, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In particular, Applicant is advised that: while the term "voxel" fundamentally refers to a "volume element" (3D counterpart to a 2D pixel) and is most commonly used for three-dimensional grids, voxel grids are not strictly limited to three dimensions in concept or application. In computer graphics, medical imaging (CT/MRI), and gaming (e.g., Minecraft, Teardown), a voxel grid is a regular 3D grid, acting as the smallest addressable unit of 3D space. In theoretical, scientific, or complex simulations, voxels can be extended beyond 3D into 4D or higher.
In the instant case, since Applicant’s originally filed Spec. (e.g., para. [0020]: “In some examples, various sensor data may be accumulated into a voxel space or array. Such a voxel space may be …”) does not impose a specific limitation on the number of dimensions of the claimed “voxel grid”, Examiner asserts the “6-dimensional vector” taught by Widmer (e.g., Fig. 16) indeed reads on the limitation “associate(ing) the first sensor data with a first voxel grid” as recited in instant claims 21, 28 and 35 of the present application.
Specifically, with the BRI to the claims, Examiner maintains the position that Widmer does teach a system/method for positioning a vehicle (see schematic diagram shown below),
PNG
media_image6.png
845
1118
media_image6.png
Greyscale
comprising:
receive first sensor data (e.g., the 1st set of voltage data including a 9D voltage vector) associated with a first position and a first orientation (para. 0075: “The magnetic field sensor 366 may be configured to generate a plurality of voltage signals under influence of the alternating magnetic field generated by the magnetic field generator 368”; para. 0089: “ … also shows voltages at the terminals of the sense coils 712, 714, 716 of the 3-axis magnetic field sensor 366, corresponding to coils 612, 614, 616 of FIG. 6”; para. 0100-0101, 0271: “the first set of (voltage) data corresponds to a multi-dimensional vector (e.g., a 9-dimensional vector)”);
associate the first sensor data with a first voxel grid (para. 0154, 0271-0272: “the first set of (voltage) data is reduced to a second set of data, the second set of data may correspond to a multi-dimensional vector, such as a 6-dimensional vector”);
determine a covariance associated with a voxel of the first voxel grid (para. 0278 discusses, to modify the vector map, a plurality of deviation vectors is determined by comparing the voltage vectors associated with the sequence of absolute position and orientation estimates with one or more corresponding reference vectors; para. 0247 discusses employing a functions fitting process based on the determined deviation vector data, including a Gaussian process regression method in which a 2D Gaussian random process is statistically defined by a mean function μ.sub.d(x, y) and covariance function κ.sub.d(Δx, Δy); para. 0249 discusses estimating the covariance functions based on the determned deviation vectors);
determine, based on the covariance, a transformation associated with the first voxel grid and a second voxel grid (para. 0277: “updating the sequence of absolute position and orientation estimates comprises determining a coordinate transformation for transforming the sequence of relative to a sequence of absolute pose estimates that most closely fits the sequence of absolute position and orientation estimates”; para. 0280: “the updated vector map may be used to determine more accurate position and orientation estimates from voltage vectors derived from sets of voltage signals generated by a plurality of receive coils at a field sensor”); and
based at least in part on the transformation, one or more of: control operation of a first vehicle (e.g., 406 in Figs. 4 and 5), or generate a map (para. 0279-0280) for transmitting to a second vehicle, so that the second vehicle is controlled based at least in part on the map (para. 0195: “The 3D map may be produced in a manner and format so that it can be used for a majority of vehicles 406 equipped with the appropriate systems and sensors. This may include vehicles 406 parking for the first time with a positioning system not specifically trained, learned or conditioned for this particular parking space”).
The rest of the Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 102 are reliant upon the issues discussed above and are deemed to be unpersuasive as well for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
4. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 21-40 are directed to an abstract idea of adjusting an estimated position and/or orientation of sensors and associated sensor data corresponding minimized voxel score for positioning a vehicle.
Specifically, representative claim 21 recites:
A system comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media communicatively coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to:
receive first sensor data associated with a first position and a first orientation;
associate the first sensor data with a first voxel grid;
determine a covariance associated with a voxel of the first voxel grid;
determine, based on the covariance, a transformation associated with the first voxel grid and a second voxel grid; and
based at least in part on the transformation, one or more of:
control operation of a first vehicle, or
generate a map for transmitting to a second vehicle, so that the second vehicle is controlled based at least in part on the map.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
System
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each or the combination of the limitations of “associate the first sensor data with a first voxel grid”, “determine a covariance associated with a voxel of the first voxel grid” and “determine, based on the covariance, a transformation associated with the first voxel grid and a second voxel grid” in the bolded portion listed above encompasses mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers that can be performed in the human mind using mental steps/critical thinking and/or with aid of pen and paper. Although it does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely indicates that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. Nothing in the bolded portion precludes these limitations from practically being performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper.
Accordingly, the bolded portion listed above recites a series of mental and mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea falling within a combination of the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Process” Groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The limitations of “one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media communicatively coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors” are recited at a high level of generality. The inclusion of these additional elements in the claim, under its BRI, covers merely performance of the abstract idea (math + mental) in the mind or with pen/paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
The limitation of “receive first sensor data associated with a first position and a first orientation” reads on merely a step of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. It does not require any particular devices or sensors to perform the “receive”, but could just as easily relate to the acquisition of values from, e.g., look-up tables as opposed to the generation of actual measurement data. Thus claim 21 would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications.
Claim 21 recites: “based at least in part on the transformation, one or more of: control operation of a vehicle, or generate a map for transmitting to a second vehicle, so that the second vehicle is controlled based at least in part on the map”. Under its BRI, this additional element is treated as an insignificant post solution activity and/or a field of use of the output from identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
In general, the claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
See analysis given in 2A - Prong 2 above.
Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is considered that the “core” of pending claim 21 is directed to an abstract algorithm of adjusting an estimated position and/or orientation of sensors and associated sensor data corresponding minimized voxel score for positioning a vehicle. The claim does not recite any additional element that amounts to “significantly more” or an “inventive concept” under the 2019 PEG (see also MPEP 2106.05).
Claim 21 is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 22-27 inherit attributes of the independent claim 21, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claim 24 recites: wherein controlling operation of the vehicle comprises one or more of: calibrating a sensor, determining a position of the vehicle in the map; or determining, based at least in part on the position, a set of controls configured to cause the vehicle to navigate through a portion of an environment associated with the map. Under its BRI, the limitation of “calibrating a sensor” reads on an insignificant post solution activity and/or a field of use of the output from identified abstract idea. The claim also does not provide any details about how the sensor is calibrated “based at least in part on the transformation”. Similarly, the step of “determining, based at least in part on the position, a set of controls configured to cause the vehicle to navigate through a portion of an environment associated with the map” encompasses an insignificant post solution activity and/or a field of use of the output from identified abstract idea. Furthermore, the claim does not provide any details about how to cause the vehicle to navigate through a portion of an environment associated with the map. It could just as easily relate to a human operation of navigating the vehicle through a portion of an environment associated with the map.
Claims 28-40 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons as for claims 21-27 illustrated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for
patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the
case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention.
6. Claims 21-25, 28-32, and 35-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Widmer et al. (US 20170361726 A1).
Regarding claims 21, 28 and 35, Widmer discloses a system and method, including computer programs encoded on a storage device, for positioning a vehicle, comprising: one or more processors (para. 0004: “hardware processor …”); and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media communicatively coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors (para. 0288) to: receive first sensor data (e.g., the 1st set of voltage data including a 9D voltage vector) associated with a first position and a first orientation (para. 0075: “The magnetic field sensor 366 may be configured to generate a plurality of voltage signals under influence of the alternating magnetic field generated by the magnetic field generator 368”; para. 0089: “ … also shows voltages at the terminals of the sense coils 712, 714, 716 of the 3-axis magnetic field sensor 366, corresponding to coils 612, 614, 616 of FIG. 6”; para. 0100-0101, 0271: “the first set of (voltage) data corresponds to a multi-dimensional vector (e.g., a 9-dimensional vector)”); associate the first sensor data with a first voxel grid (para. 0154, 0271-0272: “the first set of (voltage) data is reduced to a second set of data, the second set of data may correspond to a multi-dimensional vector, such as a 6-dimensional vector”, note: with the BRI to the claim, Widmer’s teaching of reducing the 9D voltage vector to the “6-dimensional vector” reads on the limitation “associate(ing) the first sensor data with a first voxel grid”); determine a covariance associated with a voxel of the first voxel grid (para. 0278 discusses, to modify the vector map, a plurality of deviation vectors is determined by comparing the voltage vectors associated with the sequence of absolute position and orientation estimates with one or more corresponding reference vectors; para. 0247 discusses employing a functions fitting process based on the determined deviation vector data, including a Gaussian process regression method in which a 2D Gaussian random process is statistically defined by a mean function μ.sub.d(x, y) and covariance function κ.sub.d(Δx, Δy); para. 0249 discusses estimating the covariance functions based on the determned deviation vectors); determine, based on the covariance, a transformation associated with the first voxel grid and a second voxel grid (para. 0277: “updating the sequence of absolute position and orientation estimates comprises determining a coordinate transformation for transforming the sequence of relative to a sequence of absolute pose estimates that most closely fits the sequence of absolute position and orientation estimates”; para. 0280: “the updated vector map may be used to determine more accurate position and orientation estimates from voltage vectors derived from sets of voltage signals generated by a plurality of receive coils at a field sensor”); and based at least in part on the transformation, one or more of: control operation of a first vehicle (e.g., 406 in Figs. 4 and 5), or generate a map (para. 0279-0280) for transmitting to a second vehicle, so that the second vehicle is controlled based at least in part on the map (para. 0195: “The 3D map may be produced in a manner and format so that it can be used for a majority of vehicles 406 equipped with the appropriate systems and sensors. This may include vehicles 406 parking for the first time with a positioning system not specifically trained, learned or conditioned for this particular parking space”).
Regarding claims 22, 29 and 36, Widmer discloses: wherein determining the transformation comprises perturbing one or more of the first position or the first orientation by a magnitude and along one or more of a directional dimension or an orientation dimension (para. 0227- 0229: it is commonly known that the so-called “weighted LMS based fitting” is a linear regression technique that assigns different "weights" to data points, giving more importance to observations with higher reliability or precision and less to those with greater variance. As such, Widmer’s teaching of weighted LMS reads on the claimed “perturbing …”).
Regarding claims 23, 30 and 37, Widmer discloses: wherein: the transformation comprises one or more of a rotation or a translation between the first voxel grid and the second voxel grid, the covariance is a first covariance, the second voxel grid is associated with a second covariance (the transformation implements a fitting between the first voxel grid and the second voxel grid, or a fitting between a first vector map and a second vector map, each of the first and the second vector maps is associated with its covariance, respectively; see discussion of the vector map processor 3206; see also para. 0226-0227, 0247), and determining the transformation comprises performing an optimization based at least in part on the first covariance and the second covariance (para. 0227, 0237, 0277: “ … the closest fit may be determined using a LMS criterion”).
Regarding claims 24, 31 and 38, Widmer discloses: wherein controlling the operation of the first vehicle comprises one or more of: calibrating a sensor, determining a position of the first vehicle in the map (para. 0279-0280).
Regarding claims 25, 32 and 39, Widmer discloses: wherein determining the transformation (i.e., the coordinate transformation for transforming the sequence of relative to a sequence of absolute pose estimates that most closely fits the sequence of absolute position and orientation estimates) comprises: determining, based on the covariance, a plane (e.g., a plane formed by the vectors defined by Eq. 55 and Eq. 56) associated with the voxel (para. 0228); determining a value (e.g., the weighted LMS) associated with the plane, and determining the transformation based on the value (para. 0228-0229, 0277).
Examiner’s Note
7. While there are related references that discuss determining a coordinate transformation for positioning a vehicle, the prior art of record does not specifically provide teachings for the claimed limitations including: wherein determining the transformation comprises: determining a plane associated with a voxel of a voxel grid; determining a value associated with the plane, and determining the transformation based on the value; wherein determining the plane comprises: determining, based on the covariance associated with the voxel, at least one of an eigenvalue or an eigenvector; and determining the plane based on at least one of the eigenvalue or the eigenvector (claim 26, 33 or 40); wherein the second voxel grid is associated with sensor data received by a third vehicle traversing a portion of an environment and the first voxel grid is associated with previously received sensor data (claim 27 or 34).
Conclusion
8. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Griesmeyer (US 9612316 B1) – Correlation And 3D-tracking Of Objects By Pointing Sensors.
Karlov et al. (US 10371784 B2) – System And Method For Multi-sensor Multi-target 3D Fusion Using An Unbiased Measurement Space.
KLANNER et al. (DE 102014215124 A1) – Mobile Unit And Method For Determining The Position Of An Environment Object Of A Mobile Unit.
Contact Information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857