DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17January2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Pending
11-21, and 33
101
11-21, and 33
112b
14, and 18-21
103
11-21, and 33
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 23March2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 11 has (have) been amended, no claims has/have been cancelled, and new claims 33 has/have been added. Thus, claims 11-21, and 33 are presently pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Claim(s) 1-9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 23March2026.
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 11-21, and 33 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim(s) 11 is directed towards a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a Prong 1
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites, in part, limitations that constitute a “mental process”. The limitations of selecting, determining, and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claims 12-21, and 33 depend from claim 11, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 11, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 11 above.
Step 2a Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a generic computing component(s) or automations to perform both the generic computing functions in the claim(s). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of using generic computer components and automations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and automations cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 14, and 18-21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the respective road segment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 18-20 recites the limitation "the current vertical motion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the determination". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 contains the limitation “a pre-determined point” which is indefinite. It is unclear what. A pre-determined point was already introduced in claim 11.
Claim 14 contains the limitation "a reference road surface profile" which is indefinite. It is unclear if a reference road surface profile is the same as the first reference road surface profile.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected due to being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11-19, 21, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar 20200139784 in view of Shin US 20190316914.
Sridhar discloses,
Claim 11; A method for localizing a vehicle, the method comprising: obtaining an approximate location of the vehicle([0014] Discloses determining an approximate location of a vehicle); determining that the approximate location is within a threshold distance of a pre-determined point of a first road segment of a series of road segments(Fig. 3 shows that an approximate location 31 within a threshold distance from a pre-determined point at the end of AA), wherein the first road segment is associated with a first reference road surface profile([0054] AA is a reference profile); and comparing a current road surface profile with the first reference road surface profile and, based on a comparison of the current road surface profile with the first reference road surface profile([0058] When the given vehicle, or a different vehicle, subsequently traverses the same section of road while detecting sequences of body motion, the newly detected sequences may be compared with the reference sequence contained in the reference map in order to locate the vehicle, the current road surface profile is BB and the reference is AA).
Claim 13; Wherein obtaining the approximate location of the vehicle is based at least in part on dead reckoning([0042] The estimated location may be obtained using, for example, a previously known location of the vehicle, using GPS data, using a dead reckoning system).
Claim 14; Further comprising obtaining for each road segment: a pre-determined point location of the respective road segment(The end of AA is the pre-determined point); and a reference road surface profile of the respective road segment(AA is the reference surface profile).
Claim 15; Further comprising using dead-reckoning to track further movement of the vehicle after the first time-point([0042] Discloses using a dead reckoning system which will track movement regardless of position or points).
Claim 16; Further comprising generating the current road surface profile([0037] Based on the received sensor data, the localization program may be configured to generate or calculate a working profile, or a characteristic fresh “fingerprint”, of a road surface just traversed by the vehicle).
Claim 17; Wherein generating the current road surface profile comprises measuring vertical motion of one or more portions of the vehicle as the vehicle operates([0037] Discloses that vertical wheel motion is recorded to generate the current road profile).
Claim 18; Wherein generating the current road surface profile further comprises filtering the current vertical motion to remove effects of wheel-hop([0006] Discloses using a low pass filter to filter vertical positions).
Claim 19; Wherein generating the current road surface profile further comprises differentiating the current vertical motion with respect to time or distance([0037] Discloses that vertical wheel motion is recorded and the working profile may be in the distance domain and/or the frequency domain which is time).
Claim 21; Wherein the comparison of the current road surface profile with the first reference road surface profile is carried out in response to the determination that the approximate location is within a threshold distance of the pre-determined point of the first road segment(Fig. 3 and [0054] Discloses that a current road profile or working profile is generated when the vehicle 31 is within a threshold distance of the pre-determined point which is AA).
Claim 33; Wherein the pre-determined point of the first road segment is an endpoint of the first road segment(Fig. 3 shows that AA is a pre-determined point of a road segment).
However, Sridhar fails to disclose:
Claim 11; Determining a first time-point at which the vehicle is located at the pre-determined point of the first road segment, thereby localizing the vehicle to the pre-determined point of the first road segment at the first time-point.
Claim 12; Wherein obtaining the approximate location of the vehicle is based at least in part on a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) location of the vehicle.
Shin teaches a similar device in the same field of road surface analysis.
Shin teaches,
Claim 11; Determining a first time-point at which the vehicle is located at the pre-determined point of the first road segment, thereby localizing the vehicle to the pre-determined point of the first road segment at the first time-point([0019] Vehicle 200 has access to map information 201 including the location of a speed bump 203. For example, the speed bump 203 can be defined in the map information by the locations of its ends at (X.sub.1, Y.sub.1) and (X.sub.2, Y.sub.2), the speed bump is the first time-point).
Claim 12; Wherein obtaining the approximate location of the vehicle is based at least in part on a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) location of the vehicle([0002] GPS techniques (including Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS)).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining a first time-point at which the vehicle is located at the pre-determined point of the first road segment, thereby localizing the vehicle to the pre-determined point of the first road segment at the first time-point as taught by Shin, for the purpose of identifying specific features at a specific position on a road portion.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include obtaining the approximate location of the vehicle is based at least in part on a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) location of the vehicle as taught by Shin, for the purpose of GNSS is a very common and well known way of tracking a location of a vehicle.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar 20200139784 in view of Shin US 20190316914 further in view of Dantu US 20120053805.
Regarding claim(s) 20, Sridhar and Shin discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim(s) 16 and 17.
However, Sridhar and Shin fails to disclose:
Claim 20; Wherein generating the current road surface profile further comprises transforming the current vertical motion from a time domain to a distance domain.
Dantu teaches a similar device in the same field of road surface profile analysis.
Dantu teaches,
Claim 20; Wherein generating the current road surface profile further comprises transforming the current vertical motion from a time domain to a distance domain([0035] Further, the height of the road surface irregularity can be calculated by performing two integrations of the data collected from the accelerometer to give distance).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include generating the current road surface profile further comprises transforming the current vertical motion from a time domain to a distance domain as taught by Dantu, for the purpose of allowing for the production of a map showing particular areas located using GPS coordinates that have particularly bad road surface irregularities as disclosed in [0035].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Merino whose telephone number is (703)756-4721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/John C Merino/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights