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 Statements (IDS) filed on 08/27/2024 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2024-0045657, filed on 04/04/2024.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because implied phrase(s) were found (Ex: “The disclosure relates to…”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 7-8 state “for each grid calculated”. However, based on claims 17-18, the office believes that should say “the second grid calculated”. Appropriate correction is required for consistency.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1-10 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder (bolded) coupled with functional language (underlined) without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
An information obtainer obtaining global positioning system…
A position score calculator generating a grid map…
A position determiner searching for a second grid…
Since Claims 1-10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 1-10 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that no corresponding structure was found to perform the claimed function. See 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification has no mention of a “obtainer”, “calculator”, and “determiner” outside of simple recitations and has no direction between what specific structure is used for these and how they are capable of their function. If claimed function is meant to be computer-implemented, the specification must disclose both the computer and the algorithm for completing the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “obtainer”, “calculator”, and “determiner”. The specification fails to disclose sufficient structure corresponding to the claimed limitations. As a result, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably determined.
Claims 1 and 11 also recites the term “position convergence determination result”. It is unclear what is converging and what that result is based on the claims and specification. As a result, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably determined. For examination purposes, “position convergence determination result” will be any sort of comparison result, number, uncertainty, or score.
Claims 7-8, and 17-18 recite the term “round”. It is unclear what the term “round” is referring to based on the claims and specification. As a result, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably determined.
Claims 7 and 17 also recite the limitation “when a round having a highest position score of the second grid is most”. It is unclear what most is referring to based on the context of highest position score. As a result, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably determined.
Claims 16-19 recites the term “that the position converges”. It is unclear which position is being referred to, as two positions were introduced, one in each individual claim and one in claim 11.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a device. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 11 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1 and 11 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 11 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 11 recites: A positioning method, comprising:
obtaining global positioning system (GPS) position information about a vehicle from a GPS satellite;
calculating a position score for generating a grid map including a first grid reflecting the GPS position information, and calculating the position score associated with a possibility that the vehicle is to be positioned for each grid of the grid map based on sensing information;
and determining a position for searching for a second grid having a highest position score and correcting a positioning value of the vehicle based on a position convergence determination result of the second grid.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “calculating, determining, and correcting” steps encompass a user to make gather information between two sources and determine conclusions from the data. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “device”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “device” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the calculating, determining, and correcting steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the device is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a device. In addition to that, the examiner submits that obtaining GPS position information using a device, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a device to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the calculating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a device or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the apparatus, the device amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of obtaining data, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of obtaining the data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the device from which the data is acquired/received is all conventional devices. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Further Claims 1 is not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 1 and 11.
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) 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20230065727-A1 to Yang et. al. (“Yang”) in view of US-20170124862-A1 to Sakai et. al. (“Sakai”).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a position score calculator generating a grid map including a first grid reflecting the GPS position information (Yang [0012] “GPS-based location information of the host vehicle”), and calculating a position score associated with a possibility that the vehicle is to be positioned for each grid of the grid map based on sensing information (Yang Fig. 4 and [0072] “the sensor data map generation unit 142 generates a sensor data map, which may be a probability grid map of the host vehicle Ego, using sensor data obtained from the first sensing area A1 of the camera 114 and the second sensing area A2 of the radar 116.”); and a position determiner searching for a second grid having a highest position score (Yang Fig. 5 & 8 and [0082] – [0086] “If the road structure Obj may be present in a specific sensor beam section based on the HD map, but the distance Δd from the sensor measurement value in the sensor beam section may be greater than a certain threshold value, it may be determined that sensor occlusion has occurred between the host vehicle Ego and the structure Obj from the corresponding beam section.” & [0096] – [0105] and Equation 3) and correcting a positioning value of the vehicle based on a position convergence determination result of the second grid (Yang Fig. 10A-12).
Yang does not teach a positioning device, comprising: an information obtainer obtaining global positioning system (GPS) position information about a vehicle from specifically a GPS satellite. However, Sakai teaches a positioning device (Sakai Fig. 2 ref 33 “Position Measurement Controller” and [0088] “The position measurement controller 33 is a computer”), comprising: an information obtainer obtaining global positioning system (GPS) position information about a vehicle from a GPS satellite (Sakai [0046] “positions of the dump truck 2 and the other construction machine 3 are detected using a real time kinematic-global navigation satellite systems (RTK-GNSS; GNSS means global navigation satellite system). An example of the global navigation satellite system is a global positioning system (GPS) but not limited to this.” & [0080] “The position measurement controller 33 is a measurement output unit that detects the GPS position of the dump truck 2,”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Yang to incorporate the teachings of Sakai such that the apparatus includes a positioning device, comprising: an information obtainer obtaining global positioning system (GPS) position information about a vehicle from specifically a GPS satellite. Doing so would allow for the positions of the vehicle and objects to be detected (Sakai [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Yang as modified by Sakai teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Yang further discloses that the information obtainer further obtains high-precision map information including position information about an object around the vehicle and the sensing information (Yang Fig. 4 and [0072] “using sensor data obtained from the first sensing area A1 of the camera 114 and the second sensing area A2 of the radar 116.”).
Regarding claim 3, Yang as modified by Sakai teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Yang further discloses that the position score calculator generates the grid map, centered on the first grid (Yang Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Yang as modified by Sakai teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3. Yang further discloses that the position score calculator regenerates the grid map, centered on the second grid (Yang Fig. 10A-12), and recalculates the position score for each grid included in the grid map, based on the position convergence determination result of the second grid not being position convergence (Yang [0114] “When the sensor data map may be updated, probability values may be increased by allowing duplicate updates for cells of the data map in which measurement values are sensed from a plurality of sensors.”).
Regarding claim 6, Yang as modified by Sakai teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Yang further discloses that the position determiner determines whether a position converges by comparing a position score of the second grid with a threshold and, when the position score of the second grid is the threshold or more, determines that the position converges (Yang Fig. 8, [0096] – [0105] and Equation 3).
Regarding claim 7, Yang as modified by Sakai teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Yang further discloses that the position determiner determines whether a position converges based on the position score for each grid calculated for each round and, when a round having a highest position score of the second grid is most, determines that the position converges (Yang Fig. 8, [0096] – [0105] and Equation 3).
Regarding claim 9, Yang as modified by Sakai teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Yang further discloses that the position determiner determines whether a position converges based on a number of times of being selected as a grid having a highest position score and, when the second grid is a grid consecutively selected N times (wherein N is an integer of 1 or more), determines that the position converges (Yang Fig. 5 & 8 and [0082] – [0086] “If the road structure Obj may be present in a specific sensor beam section based on the HD map, but the distance Δd from the sensor measurement value in the sensor beam section may be greater than a certain threshold value, it may be determined that sensor occlusion has occurred between the host vehicle Ego and the structure Obj from the corresponding beam section… Accordingly, it may be determined whether occlusion may be caused by a vehicle by checking data class and moving flag information of low-level information obtained from a beam section in which sensor occlusion may be determined to have occurred. When the data class may be a car and the moving flag information represents “moving”, the corresponding vehicle may be selected as a target vehicle to share sensor data.” & [0096] – [0105] and Equation 3).
Regarding claim 10, Yang as modified by Sakai teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Yang further discloses that the position determiner corrects the GPS position information about the vehicle based on a position of the second grid, based on the position convergence determination result of the second grid being position convergence (Yang Fig. 5 & 8 and [0082] – [0086] “If the road structure Obj may be present in a specific sensor beam section based on the HD map, but the distance Δd from the sensor measurement value in the sensor beam section may be greater than a certain threshold value, it may be determined that sensor occlusion has occurred between the host vehicle Ego and the structure Obj from the corresponding beam section.” & [0096] – [0105] and Equation 3, Fig. 10A-12 and [0095] – [0132] discusses updating sensor data map of ego vehicle).
Regarding claim 11, Yang teaches a positioning method (Yang Claim 1), comprising:
calculating a position score for generating a grid map including a first grid reflecting the GPS position information (Yang [0012] “GPS-based location information of the host vehicle”), and calculating the position score associated with a possibility that the vehicle is to be positioned for each grid of the grid map based on sensing information (Yang Fig. 4 and [0072] “the sensor data map generation unit 142 generates a sensor data map, which may be a probability grid map of the host vehicle Ego, using sensor data obtained from the first sensing area A1 of the camera 114 and the second sensing area A2 of the radar 116.”);
and determining a position for searching for a second grid having a highest position score (Yang Fig. 5 & 8 and [0082] – [0086] “If the road structure Obj may be present in a specific sensor beam section based on the HD map, but the distance Δd from the sensor measurement value in the sensor beam section may be greater than a certain threshold value, it may be determined that sensor occlusion has occurred between the host vehicle Ego and the structure Obj from the corresponding beam section.” & [0096] – [0105] and Equation 3) and correcting a positioning value of the vehicle based on a position convergence determination result of the second grid (Yang Fig. 10A-12).
Yang does not teach obtaining global positioning system (GPS) position information about a vehicle from a GPS satellite. However, Sakai teaches obtaining global positioning system (GPS) position information about a vehicle from a GPS satellite (Sakai [0046] “positions of the dump truck 2 and the other construction machine 3 are detected using a real time kinematic-global navigation satellite systems (RTK-GNSS; GNSS means global navigation satellite system). An example of the global navigation satellite system is a global positioning system (GPS) but not limited to this.” & [0080] “The position measurement controller 33 is a measurement output unit that detects the GPS position of the dump truck 2,”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the method of Yang to incorporate the teachings of Sakai such that the method includes obtaining global positioning system (GPS) position information about a vehicle from a GPS satellite. Doing so would allow for the positions of the vehicle and objects to be detected (Sakai [0046]).
With respect to Claims 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20, all limitations have been examined with respect to the device in claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9-10. The device taught/disclosed in claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9-10 can clearly perform the method of claims 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20. Therefore claims 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5, 8, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Sakai, further in view of US-20230089897-A1 to Pan et. al. (“Pan”).
Regarding claim 5, Yang as modified by Sakai teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Yang further discloses that the position score calculator sequentially calculates the position score for each grid included in the grid map (Yang [0075] – [0086] and Equations 1-2). Yang as modified by Sakai does not teach that the position score is based on a grid searching algorithm. However, Pan teaches that the position score is based on a grid searching algorithm (Pan Fig. 10, Fig. 13B, and [0126]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Pan to Yang as modified by Sakai such that the position score is based on a grid searching algorithm. Doing so would allow pseudo measurements to be fused with other ground height measurements to obtain a single ground height model that is spatially and temporally consistent when one or more sensors are unavailable due to occlusions (Pan [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Yang as modified by Sakai teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Yang further discloses that the position determiner determines whether a position converges based on a position score for each grid calculated for each round and, when the position score of the second grid is highest, determines that the position converges (Yang Fig. 8, [0096] – [0105] and Equation 3). Yang does not teach that the determiner determines whether a position converges based on an average position score. However, Pan teaches that the position determiner determines whether a position converges based on an average position score (Pan [0158] “In an embodiment, the uncertainty is propagated based on distance. A weighted average of all means (e.g., ground heights) and variances (e.g., uncertainties) is calculated.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Pan to Yang as modified by Sakai such that t the determiner determines whether a position converges based on an average position score. Doing so would allow pseudo measurements to be fused with other ground height measurements to obtain a single ground height model that is spatially and temporally consistent when one or more sensors are unavailable due to occlusions (Pan [0037]).
With respect to Claims 15 and 18, all limitations have been examined with respect to the device in claims 5 and 8. The device taught/disclosed in claims 5 and 8 can clearly perform the method of claims 15 and 18. Therefore claims 15 and 18 are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666