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.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 04/27/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “highest is the highest” should be rewritten as “highest”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-8 and 17-18 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.
Claims 7-8, and 17-18 recite the term “determination rounds”. 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.
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 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 1 recites: A positioning device, comprising: a processor configured to:
obtain global positioning system (GPS) position information about a vehicle from a GPS satellite;
generate a grid map including a first grid reflecting the GPS position information, and calculate 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;
search for a second grid having a highest position score and correct a positioning value of the vehicle based on a position convergence determination result of the second grid, a position convergence determination being a determination of whether the second grid is finally determined as the position of the vehicle according to a criterion;
and transmit a corrected positioning value of the vehicle to an external terminal.
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 “generating, calculating, searching, and correcting” steps encompass a user to make gather information between two sources and determine conclusions from the data. Calculating a score and correcting a value are things that can be done mentally. Searching for something based on a value is also something that can be done mentally. Generating a map is a process that can be done mentally with pen and paper. 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 “processor”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the generating, calculating, searching, and correcting steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the processor 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 processor. In addition to that, the examiner submits that obtaining GPS position information and transmitting data to a terminal using a processor, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a processor to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining and transmitting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering/transferring data for use in the calculating step), and amounts to mere data gathering and transferring, 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 1 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 processor 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 1 is not patent eligible.
Further Claims 11 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 processor (Yang ref 140 “sensor data processing unit”) configured to: generate a grid map including a first grid reflecting the GPS position information (Yang [0012] “GPS-based location information of the host vehicle”), and calculate 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.”); search 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 correct a positioning value of the vehicle based on a position convergence determination result of the second grid (Yang Fig. 10A-12), a position convergence determination being a determination of whether the second grid is finally determined as the position of the vehicle according to a criterion (Yang [0128] “When a target vehicle may be selected, the sensor data map may be updated by receiving sensor data from the target vehicle (S230). The sensor data may be received from the target vehicle through vehicle-to-vehicle communication. Confidence may be calculated for the received sensor data, and only sensor data having calculated confidence equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value may be updated to the sensor data map of the host vehicle Ego.”);
Yang does not teach a positioning device, comprising: a processor configured to: obtain global positioning system (GPS) position information about a vehicle from a GPS satellite, and transmit a corrected positioning value of the vehicle to an external terminal. 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: a processor (Sakai ref 12 “processing device”) configured to: obtain 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,”), and transmit a corrected positioning value of the vehicle to an external terminal (Sakai [0054] “The transceiver 19B detects the GPS position of the GPS base station 19 from the information received by the antenna 19A and correction measurement information for correcting the GPS position of the dump truck 2. The transceiver 19B of the GPS base station 19 transmits the correction measurement information to the dump truck 2 and the other construction machine 3 via the antenna 19C.”). Sakai also discloses generate a grid map including a first grid reflecting the GPS position information (Sakai [0080] “the position measurement controller 33 includes a determining unit 33A, a matching navigation calculation unit 33B, and a grid map creating unit 33C.”), and calculate 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 (Sakai [0083] “When the determining unit 33A determines that the error in the GPS position of the dump truck 2, detected by the GPS receiver 31 is equal to or smaller than the predetermined error, the grid map creating unit 33C detects the position of the vertical projection VP provided in at least one of the outside of the loading area LPA”).
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: a processor configured to: obtain global positioning system (GPS) position information about a vehicle from a GPS satellite, and transmit a corrected positioning value of the vehicle to an external terminal. 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 processor is further configured to obtain 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 processor is further configured to generate 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 processor is further configured to regenerate the grid map, centered on the second grid (Yang Fig. 10A-12), and recalculate 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 processor is further configured to determine 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, determine 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 the processor is further configured to determine whether a position converges based on the position score for a respective grid, that is calculated for each of a plurality of determination rounds, and, when the number of determination rounds in which the position score of the second grid is highest is the highest, determine 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 processor is further configured to determine 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 processor is further configured to correct 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.”);
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), a position convergence determination being a determination of whether the second grid is finally determined as the position of the vehicle according to a criterion (Yang [0128] “When a target vehicle may be selected, the sensor data map may be updated by receiving sensor data from the target vehicle (S230). The sensor data may be received from the target vehicle through vehicle-to-vehicle communication. Confidence may be calculated for the received sensor data, and only sensor data having calculated confidence equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value may be updated to the sensor data map of the host vehicle Ego.”).
Yang does not teach obtaining global positioning system (GPS) position information about a vehicle from a GPS satellite, and transmitting a corrected positioning value of the vehicle to an external terminal. 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,”), and transmitting a corrected positioning value of the vehicle to an external terminal (Sakai [0054] “The transceiver 19B detects the GPS position of the GPS base station 19 from the information received by the antenna 19A and correction measurement information for correcting the GPS position of the dump truck 2. The transceiver 19B of the GPS base station 19 transmits the correction measurement information to the dump truck 2 and the other construction machine 3 via the antenna 19C.”). Sakai also discloses generate a grid map including a first grid reflecting the GPS position information (Sakai [0080] “the position measurement controller 33 includes a determining unit 33A, a matching navigation calculation unit 33B, and a grid map creating unit 33C.”), and calculate 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 (Sakai [0083] “When the determining unit 33A determines that the error in the GPS position of the dump truck 2, detected by the GPS receiver 31 is equal to or smaller than the predetermined error, the grid map creating unit 33C detects the position of the vertical projection VP provided in at least one of the outside of the loading area LPA”).
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, and transmitting a corrected positioning value of the vehicle to an external terminal. 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 processor is further configured to sequentially calculate 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 processor is further configured to determine whether a position converges based on a position score for a respective grid, that is calculated for a plurality of determination rounds, and, when the position score of the second grid is highest, determine that the position converges (Yang Fig. 8, [0096] – [0105] and Equation 3). Yang does not teach that the processor is further configured to determine whether a position converges based on an average position score. However, Pan teaches that the processor is further configured to determine 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 the processor is further configured to determine 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.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 04/27/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the Abstract objections, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim objections, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim objections appear on the record as stated in the above Office Action.
With respect to the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the above Office Action.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
Applicant remarks:
Independent claim 1 is amended to clarify that the claimed subject matter is directed to interworking operations between hardware devices and non-mental operations, such as "obtain global positioning system (GPS) position information about a vehicle from a GPS satellite; transmit a corrected positioning value of the vehicle to an external terminal (emphasis added). Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the subject matter of amended independent claim 1 should not be considered as the mental process. Accordingly, amended independent claim 1 is not directed to abstract idea.
Applicant submits that the above features should be considered as additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the claimed subject matter, by improving accuracy of determining the vehicle position, in a non-conventional way. More particularly, according to the above features of amended independent claim 1, it is possible to determine whether GPS position information is accurate and control the vehicle according to accurate position information, thereby preventing an unexpected vehicle accident that may occur due to control based on inaccurate information. Thus, the claimed subject matter provides technical improvement.
Office Response:
These two limitations were never treated as mental operations, but rather generic data transferring/gathering.
Like stated in the 101 rejections, the claims recite a judicial exception in mental processes because the steps can be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The additional claim elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, such as collecting data or outputting the results. These do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology. There is also no controlling of the vehicle in claims 1 or 11.
Therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
However, even though applicant has amended the scope of the claims and the Office has provided new mapping of cited prior art below, the Office is still using some of the same cited prior art, thus the Office will attempt to address all remarks that remain relevant.
Applicant remarks:
Meanwhile, Yang only discloses a sensor data map (or a probability grid map) indicating the probability that low-level data of a sensor (LiDAR/camera, etc.) can be acquired at a specific location (e.g., a cell of the grid map). That is, a map of Yang is for indicating the sensor detection performance (or probability) at a specific location (e.g., cell), which is different from the 'grid map indicating the probability of a vehicle being located' in the independent claim of the present application.
Furthermore, independent claim 1 defines a 'configuration for calculating a position score indicating the probability of a vehicle being located for each grid' and a 'configuration for searching (or determining) a second grid with the highest position score and correcting the vehicle position value based on the result of a position convergence determination for the second grid (i.e., a determination result for determining the second grid as the final vehicle position),' whereas Yang does not disclose any configuration corresponding to these configurations of the claimed subject matter of independent claim 1.
The Office Action asserts that the configurations as above of independent claim 1 are disclosed in paragraphs [0082]-[0086], [0096]-[0105], etc. of Yang. However, paragraphs [0082]- [0086] of Yang only discloses a configuration for determining sensor occlusion (specifically, determining that sensor occlusion has occurred between the vehicle and the structure when the distance (d) from the sensor measurement value to the road structure is greater than a threshold value), and paragraphs [0096]-[0105] of Yang discloses only content regarding the classification of sensor data and the quality or certainty of sensor measurement values. Therefore, Yang does not disclose or suggest at all the configurations in the independent claim of the present application, such as 'calculation of a position score representing the probability of vehicle position for each grid' and 'the search of the second grid and the determination of position convergence for the second grid', and 'correction of vehicle position value based on position convergence determination result for second grid,' as recited in independent claim 1. In other words, independent claim 1 specifically defines configuration to a series of steps: 1 generation of a grid map 2 calculation of a position score for each grid 3 search for the second grid with the highest score 4 determination of position convergence for the second grid (i.e., determination of whether the second grid can be determined as the final vehicle position) 5 correction of the vehicle position based on the result of the position convergence determination for the second grid.
Office Response:
Please see the remapping of the prior art. Specifically, see that Sakai also discloses generating a grid map including the probability of a vehicle being located.
See updated mapping of Yang for position convergence determination. The office respectfully disagrees and believes that Yang as modified by Sakai does teach these configurations. Note that the term “configuration” is not present in the claims.
Looking at the mapping of Yang as modified by Sakai, Yang does disclose generating a grid map for position information, and calculating a probability score of each grid of the grid map based on sensing information, as well as searches for the second grid and determination of position convergence for the second grid, and corrects the positioning value. Sakai discloses that the position information is for a vehicle from a GPS satellite, as well as discloses generating a grid map reflecting vehicle position information. Those two in combination discloses the configurations of the claims. See mapping above.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights