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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on October 2, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites in part “converting, according to the first angle and conversion formulae” which appears to be a typographical error and “converting, according to the first angle and a conversion formulae” was intended.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 Analysis:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method, which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites: A vehicle waypoint determination method, comprising:
acquiring an original waypoint sequence of a vehicle in a geodetic coordinate system;
converting the original waypoint sequence into an intermediate waypoint sequence in a coordinate system with an origin being a starting waypoint of a way of the vehicle;
determining a slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence; and
converting, according to the slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence, the intermediate waypoint sequence into a target waypoint sequence in a dead reckoning (DR) coordinate system.
The limitations highlighted in claim 1 above are a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitations of claim 1 highlighted above merely consists of converting an original waypoint sequence into an intermediate waypoint sequence in a coordinate system with an origin at a starting waypoint, determining a slope at each waypoint within the intermediate waypoint sequence, and converting the intermediate waypoint sequence into a target waypoint sequence based on the slope at each waypoint. This is the equivalent of a person translating coordinates for a set of waypoints in a first coordinate system into a second coordinate system with an origin set at the first point of the set of waypoints, determining a slope at each waypoint, and rotating the set of waypoints in the second coordinate system into a third coordinate system based on the slope at each waypoint. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. The claim limitations highlighted above can also be interpreted as a mathematical concept.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites: A vehicle waypoint determination method, comprising:
acquiring an original waypoint sequence of a vehicle in a geodetic coordinate system;
converting the original waypoint sequence into an intermediate waypoint sequence in a coordinate system with an origin being a starting waypoint of a way of the vehicle;
determining a slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence; and
converting, according to the slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence, the intermediate waypoint sequence into a target waypoint sequence in a dead reckoning (DR) coordinate system.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional elements underlined above do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The acquiring step is recited at a high level of generality (as a general means of data gathering) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Further, the method amounts to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps of converting and determining are performed by a processor. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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. 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 limitation of acquiring data is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field. Acquiring data is a fundamental, i.e. WURC, activity performed by processors.
Claim 10 Analysis:
STEP 1: Does claim 10 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward an apparatus, which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites: A vehicle waypoint determination apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and
a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor;
wherein a computer program executable by the at least one processor is stored in the memory, and the computer program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to:
acquire an original waypoint sequence of a vehicle in a geodetic coordinate system;
convert the original waypoint sequence into an intermediate waypoint sequence in a coordinate system with an origin being a starting waypoint of a way of the vehicle;
determine a slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence; and
convert, according to the slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence, the intermediate waypoint sequence into a target waypoint sequence in a dead reckoning (DR) coordinate system.
The limitations highlighted in claim 10 above are a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitations of claim 1 highlighted above merely consists of converting an original waypoint sequence into an intermediate waypoint sequence in a coordinate system with an origin at a starting waypoint, determining a slope at each waypoint within the intermediate waypoint sequence, and converting the intermediate waypoint sequence into a target waypoint sequence based on the slope at each waypoint. This is the equivalent of a person translating coordinates for a set of waypoints in a first coordinate system into a second coordinate system with an origin set at the first point of the set of waypoints, determining a slope at each waypoint, and rotating the set of waypoints in the second coordinate system into a third coordinate system based on the slope at each waypoint. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. The claim limitations highlighted above can also be interpreted as a mathematical concept.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites: A vehicle waypoint determination apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and
a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor;
wherein a computer program executable by the at least one processor is stored in the memory, and the computer program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to:
acquire an original waypoint sequence of a vehicle in a geodetic coordinate system;
convert the original waypoint sequence into an intermediate waypoint sequence in a coordinate system with an origin being a starting waypoint of a way of the vehicle;
determine a slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence; and
convert, according to the slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence, the intermediate waypoint sequence into a target waypoint sequence in a dead reckoning (DR) coordinate system.
Claim 10 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional elements underlined above do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The acquiring step is recited at a high level of generality (as a general means of data gathering) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Further, the structural limitations of a processor and memory storing a computer program amounts to a generic computer with instructions to implement an abstract idea, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps of converting and determining are performed by a processor. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 10 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. 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 limitation of acquiring data is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field. Acquiring data is a fundamental, i.e. WURC, activity performed by processors.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 10.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
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.
Claims 1, 4-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 104359492 by Zhu (herein after “Zhu”), in view of U.S. Patent No. US 8,046,160 by Carter et al. (herein after “Carter”), “How SLOPE equals Tangent of an Angel” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY5:15zibcWUPCU by OkoduwaSTEM (herein after “OkoduwaSTEM”), and “Using a Homogenous Transformation Matrix to Combine Rotation and Translation” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LftL6dA6tzE by Christopher Lum (herein after “Christopher Lum”).
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application. Text written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses a vehicle waypoint determination method, comprising:
acquiring an original waypoint sequence of a vehicle in a geodetic coordinate system (Zhu pg. 2: The test vehicle turns on the on-board inertial navigation, wheel speedometer and GPS to drive for a certain distance, and records the inertial navigation direction, wheel speedometer and GPS latitude and longitude coordinate data respectively; Zhu pg. 4: In order to facilitate the synchronous collection of vehicle direction information and coordinate information, and to avoid unnecessary errors caused by different data collection times during dead reckoning, preferably, the inertial navigation device and the GPS receiving device are set to collect at the same initial moment and at the same cycle Vehicle heading, driving distance and GPS latitude and longitude coordinate information);
converting the original waypoint sequence into an intermediate waypoint sequence in a coordinate system with an origin being a starting waypoint of a way of the vehicle (Zhu pg. 2: Set the local coordinate system with the starting point of the test vehicle as the origin, convert the GPS latitude and longitude coordinates and the dead reckoning coordinates in step (2) into local coordinate system coordinates);
.
It is noted that Zhu discloses recording a vehicle heading but fails to explicitly disclose determining a slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence; and
converting, according to the slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence, the intermediate waypoint sequence into a target waypoint sequence in a dead reckoning (DR) coordinate system.
However, Carter, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a heading angle of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence (Carter col. 22 lines 5-7: Due to the choice of orientation for the Earth-based coordinate system 320, the vector B.sub.0 lies in the X-Z plane and makes an angle.phi with respect to the X-axis Carter col. 22 lines 11-24: the magnetic field sensor 212 is oriented to measure two or more components of the local magnetic field along the (x,y,z) coordinate directions of the coordinate system 330. In the coordinate system 320, the geomagnetic field has components B.sub.x=B.sub.0 cos.phi. cos.theta. B.sub.y=B.sub.0 cos.phi. sin.theta. B.sub.z=B.sub.0 sin.phi. (3) The heading angle.theta. is determined from the magnetic field measurements according to theta.=arctan(B.sub.y/B.sub.x)).
It is noted that Carter discloses determining a heading angle theta but fails to explicitly teach determining a slope of each waypoint.
However, OkoduwaSTEM, solving a similar problem, teaches how a heading angle can be converted to a slope of a line between points using a tangent function (OkoduwaSTEM: 5:15-6:41).
PNG
media_image1.png
887
1331
media_image1.png
Greyscale
OkoduwaSTEM at time 6:41, above, shows the equation tan(α), where α is the angle between a line and a coordinate axis, is equal to the slope of a line between points P0 at (x0, y0) and P1 at (x1, y1). Thus, the combination of Carter and OkoduwaSTEM teaches a system for determining a slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence using a heading angle at each waypoint.
Further, Christopher Lum, solving a similar problem, teaches how a transformation matrix can be defined using an angle, Ψ, between two coordinate systems (Christopher Lum: 27:10-41:08).
PNG
media_image2.png
924
1329
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Christopher Lum at 28:23, above, shows the heading angle Ψ of a vehicle coordinate system (xb, yb) as it relates to a reference coordinate system (xr, yr).
PNG
media_image3.png
929
1328
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Christopher Lum at 34:19, above, shows how to define a transformation matrix (yellow box) composed of a rotation matrix (red box), defined based on the heading angle Ψ of a vehicle, and a translation vector. The combination of Carter, OkoduwaSTEM, and Christopher Lum teaches how heading angles at waypoints can be converted into slopes and how the slopes or heading angles can be used to convert waypoint coordinates from a first coordinate system into a second coordinate system using a transformation matrix. Thus, the combination of Carter, OkoduwaSTEM, and Christopher Lum teaches converting, according to the slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence, the intermediate waypoint sequence into a target waypoint sequence in a dead reckoning (DR) coordinate system.
Examiner interprets the limitations of claim 1 to include mathematical operations that convert geodetic coordinates of waypoints into a first coordinate system with a first waypoint set as the origin, determine a slope of each waypoint, and convert the coordinates in the first coordinate system into a second coordinate system via a rotation. The combination of Zhu, Carter, OkoduwaSTEM, and Christopher Lum teaches mathematical operations that allow for waypoint coordinates to be converted between coordinate systems based on a slope or heading angle of a vehicle at each waypoint.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dead reckoning positioning system of Zhu to include the heading angle determination of Carter, the conversion of an angle to a slope of OkoduwaSTEM, and the transformation matrix for converting between coordinate systems of Christopher Lum with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to estimate an objects present position based on one or more prior positions, heading and speed (Carter col. 1 line 65 – col. 2 line 2), to find the slope of a line (OkoduwaSTEM: 0:00-0:30), and to express vectors in coordinate frames that are rotated and translated from one another (Christopher Lum: video description).
Regarding claim 4, Zhu discloses wherein each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence comprises a yaw angle (Zhu pg. 4: headingn- l is the instantaneous inertial navigation heading of the test vehicle at the n-1th moment. Mark the inertial navigation data as heading, and the heading change rate θ = headingn - headingn-1 when the test vehicle is driving; Zhu pg. 4: In order to facilitate the synchronous collection of vehicle direction information and coordinate information, and to avoid unnecessary errors caused by different data collection times during dead reckoning, preferably, the inertial navigation device and the GPS receiving device are set to collect at the same initial moment and at the same cycle Vehicle heading, driving distance and GPS latitude and longitude coordinate information);
.
It is noted that Zhu fails to explicitly disclose before determining the slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence, the vehicle waypoint determination method further comprises:
deleting at least one waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence to obtain a screened intermediate waypoint sequence, wherein a difference between a yaw angle of each of the at least one waypoint and a yaw angle of the starting waypoint of the way of the vehicle is greater than a preset yaw angle.
However, Carter, in the same field of endeavor, teaches before determining the heading angle of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence, the vehicle waypoint determination method further comprises:
deleting at least one waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence to obtain a screened intermediate waypoint sequence, wherein a difference between a yaw angle of each of the at least one waypoint and a yaw angle of the starting waypoint of the way of the vehicle is greater than a preset yaw angle (Carter col 10 lines 61-65: Artificial fluctuations in the field components detected by the magnetic sensors 204 can be reduced using a number of techniques. For example, the signal conditioning module 208 can low pass filter the sensor 204 signals. The filter may comprise an analog and/or a digital filter; Carter col. 23 lines 33-43: embodiments of the system can be configured to use information related to the object's past positions (and/or speeds, headings, etc.) to provide an "optimal" or "best-fit" estimate of the object's present position. As is well known in the art, such optimal or best-fit estimates may utilize various signal processing or control theory methods. For example, some embodiments of the system use one or more filters to reduce the effects of measurement noise and to provide more reliable position data. Filters include, but are not limited to, analog filters or digital filters such as recursive (IIR) and non-recursive (FIR) filters).
Further, as noted in the rejection to claim 1 above, the combination of Zhu, Carter, OkoduwaSTEM, and Christopher Lum teaches mathematical operations that allow for waypoint coordinates to be converted between coordinate systems based on a slope or heading angle of a vehicle at each waypoint.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dead reckoning positioning system of Zhu modified by the heading angle determination of Carter, the conversion of an angle to a slope of OkoduwaSTEM, and the transformation matrix for converting between coordinate systems of Christopher Lum to further include the noise filtering of heading data of Carter with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to estimate an objects present position based on one or more prior positions, heading and speed (Carter col. 1 line 65 – col. 2 line 2).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu fails to particularly disclose wherein determining the slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence comprises:
for each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence, determining a slope of two waypoints adjacent to each waypoint; and
determining the determined slope of the two waypoints as the slope of each waypoint.
However, OkoduwaSTEM, solving a similar problem, teaches wherein determining the slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence comprises:
for each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence, determining a slope of two waypoints adjacent to each waypoint; and
determining the determined slope of the two waypoints as the slope of each waypoint.
PNG
media_image4.png
887
1331
media_image4.png
Greyscale
OkoduwaSTEM at time 6:41, above, teaches that the slope of all points (purple arrow) on a line between points P0 at (x0, y0) and P1 at (x1, y1) are equal to the slope at points P0 at (x0, y0) and P1 at (x1, y1).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dead reckoning positioning system of Zhu modified by the heading angle determination of Carter, the conversion of an angle to a slope of OkoduwaSTEM, and the transformation matrix for converting between coordinate systems of Christopher Lum to explicitly include the equation for finding the slope of a line of OkoduwaSTEM with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to find the slope of a line (OkoduwaSTEM: 0:00-0:30).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu fails to particularly disclose wherein converting, according to the slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence, the intermediate waypoint sequence into the target waypoint sequence in the DR coordinate system comprises:
sorting slopes of all waypoints in the intermediate waypoint sequence;
selecting a preset number of slopes from the sorted slopes according to a preset rule;
calculating an average slope of the preset number of slopes; and
converting, according to the average slope, the intermediate waypoint sequence into the target waypoint sequence in the DR coordinate system.
However, Carter, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein converting, according to the slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence, the intermediate waypoint sequence into the target waypoint sequence in the DR coordinate system comprises:
sorting heading angles of all waypoints in the intermediate waypoint sequence (Carter col. 11 lines 1-3: One embodiment utilizes a moving average (e.g., a boxcar average) applied to a number of the past measurements, such as, for example, 2, 4, 8, 10, 20, 40, or 100 measurements);
selecting a preset number of heading angles from the sorted heading angles according to a preset rule (Carter col. 11 lines 1-3: One embodiment utilizes a moving average (e.g., a boxcar average) applied to a number of the past measurements, such as, for example, 2, 4, 8, 10, 20, 40, or 100 measurements);
calculating an average heading angle of the preset number of heading angles (Carter col. 23 lines 49-65: In one embodiment, measurement errors are reduced by averaging speed and/or heading data. For example, if the variance corresponding to a heading measurement theta.sub.i is sigma.sub.i.sup.2, an improved estimate of the present heading {circumflex over (.theta.)}.sub.i can be determined from a weighted average of the prior M measurements where the weighting coefficients are the inverse measurement variances).
Further, as noted in the rejection to claim 1 above, the combination of Zhu, Carter, OkoduwaSTEM, and Christopher Lum teaches mathematical operations that allow for waypoint coordinates to be converted between coordinate systems based on a slope or heading angle of a vehicle at each waypoint. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to convert waypoint coordinates between coordinate systems based on an average slope or average heading angle of a vehicle at each waypoint.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dead reckoning positioning system of Zhu modified by the heading angle determination of Carter, the conversion of an angle to a slope of OkoduwaSTEM, and the transformation matrix for converting between coordinate systems of Christopher Lum to further include the moving average of heading data of Carter with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to estimate an objects present position based on one or more prior positions, heading and speed (Carter col. 1 line 65 – col. 2 line 2).
Regarding claim 7, Zhu fails to particularly disclose wherein converting, according to the average slope, the intermediate waypoint sequence into the target waypoint sequence in the DR coordinate system comprises:
calculating, according to the average slope, a first angle of the intermediate waypoint sequence in the coordinate system where the intermediate waypoint sequence is located; and
converting, according to the first angle and conversion formulae, the intermediate waypoint sequence into the target waypoint sequence in the DR coordinate system.
However, OkoduwaSTEM, solving a similar problem, teaches calculating, according to the average slope, a first angle of the intermediate waypoint sequence in the coordinate system where the intermediate waypoint sequence is located.
PNG
media_image1.png
887
1331
media_image1.png
Greyscale
OkoduwaSTEM at time 6:41, above, shows the equation tan(α), where α is the angle between a line and a coordinate axis, is equal to the slope of a line between points P0 at (x0, y0) and P1 at (x1, y1). Conversely, the inverse tangent function or arctan(slope) is equal to α where α is the angle between a line and a coordinate axis.
Further, Christopher Lum, solving a similar problem, teaches converting, according to the first angle and conversion formulae, the intermediate waypoint sequence into the target waypoint sequence in the DR coordinate system.
PNG
media_image5.png
924
1325
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Christopher Lum at 35:18, above, shows a transformation matrix (yellow box), composed of a rotation matrix based on the heading angle Ψ of a vehicle and a translation vector, and a position vector (blue box). The transformation matrix is multiplied by the position vector to convert points between coordinate systems. The combination of Carter, OkoduwaSTEM, and Christopher Lum teaches how heading angles at waypoints can be converted into slopes and averaged. The average slopes or heading angles can then be used to convert waypoint coordinates from a first coordinate system into a second coordinate system using a transformation matrix.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dead reckoning positioning system of Zhu modified by the heading angle determination including the moving average of heading data of Carter, the conversion of an angle to a slope of OkoduwaSTEM, and the transformation matrix for converting between coordinate systems of Christopher Lum to explicitly include the transformation matrix multiplication of Christopher Lum with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to express vectors in coordinate frames that are rotated and translated from one another (Christopher Lum: video description).
Regarding claim 8, Zhu fails to particularly disclose wherein the conversion formulae comprise:
xi3 = xi2 · cos(θ) - yi2 · sin(θ), and
yi3 = xi2 · sin(θ) + yi2 · cos (θ);
wherein i represents a positive integer, θ represents the first angle, (xi2, yi2) represents coordinates of a waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence, and (xi3, yi3) represents coordinates of a waypoint in the target waypoint sequence.
However, Christopher Lum, solving a similar problem, teaches wherein the conversion formulae comprise:
xi3 = xi2 · cos(θ) - yi2 · sin(θ), and
yi3 = xi2 · sin(θ) + yi2 · cos (θ);
wherein i represents a positive integer, θ represents the first angle, (xi2, yi2) represents coordinates of a waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence, and (xi3, yi3) represents coordinates of a waypoint in the target waypoint sequence.
PNG
media_image5.png
924
1325
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Christopher Lum at 35:18, above, shows a transformation matrix (yellow box), composed of a rotation matrix based on the heading angle Ψ of a vehicle and a translation vector, and a position vector (blue box). The transformation matrix is multiplied by the position vector to convert points between coordinate systems. As an example, using a position vector [xi1, yi1], in a first coordinate system, and a rotation matrix [[cos(Ψ), -sin(Ψ)], [sin(Ψ), cos(Ψ)]] would result in a new position vector [xi2, yi2], in a second coordinate system. Applying the rules for matrix multiplication would result in the following equations for each component of the position vector: xi2 = xi1 ∙ cos(Ψ) - yi1 ∙ sin(Ψ) and yi2 = xi1 ∙ sin(Ψ) + yi1 ∙ cos(Ψ). Thus, the conversion formula of claim 8 merely defines the equation for rotating a position vector between coordinate systems based on a rotation angle Ψ and would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dead reckoning positioning system of Zhu modified by the heading angle determination including the moving average of heading data of Carter, the conversion of an angle to a slope of OkoduwaSTEM, and the transformation matrix multiplication for converting position vectors between coordinate systems of Christopher Lum to explicitly include the conversion formula for rotating a position vector of Christopher Lum with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to express vectors in coordinate frames that are rotated from one another (Christopher Lum: video description).
Regarding claim 9, Zhu discloses wherein acquiring the original waypoint sequence of the vehicle in the geodetic coordinate system comprises:
determining, with onboard integrated navigation, latitude and longitude coordinates and yaw angles of the vehicle after the vehicle travels straight for a distance; and
obtaining the original waypoint sequence according to the latitude and longitude coordinates and the yaw angles (Zhu pg. 2: The test vehicle turns on the on-board inertial navigation, wheel speedometer and GPS to drive for a certain distance, and records the inertial navigation direction, wheel speedometer and GPS latitude and longitude coordinate data respectively; Zhu pg. 4: headingn- l is the instantaneous inertial navigation heading of the test vehicle at the n-1th moment. Mark the inertial navigation data as heading, and the heading change rate θ = headingn - headingn-1 when the test vehicle is driving; Zhu pg. 4: In order to facilitate the synchronous collection of vehicle direction information and coordinate information, and to avoid unnecessary errors caused by different data collection times during dead reckoning, preferably, the inertial navigation device and the GPS receiving device are set to collect at the same initial moment and at the same cycle Vehicle heading, driving distance and GPS latitude and longitude coordinate information).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Zhu, Carter, OkoduwaSTEM, and Christopher Lum discloses a vehicle waypoint determination apparatus (Carter: Fig. 2A), comprising:
at least one processor (Carter: processor 220 in Fig. 2A); and
a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor (Carter col. 16 lines 47-50: the processor 220 includes a digital signal processor (DSP), an analog-to-digital converter (ADC), on-board memory (including flash memory, RAM, and/or ROM));
wherein a computer program executable by the at least one processor is stored in the memory (Carter col. 16 lines 57-64: the modules may implement the processor's functions (e.g., position determination) differently or in a different order. As used herein, the term module refers to logic embodied in hardware or firmware, or to a collection of software instructions, possibly having entry and exit points, written in a programming language, such as, for example, C, C++, or FORTRAN), and the computer program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to:
acquire an original waypoint sequence of a vehicle in a geodetic coordinate system (See claim 1 rejection above);
convert the original waypoint sequence into an intermediate waypoint sequence in a coordinate system with an origin being a starting waypoint of a way of the vehicle (See claim 1 rejection above);
determine a slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence (See claim 1 rejection above); and
convert, according to the slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence, the intermediate waypoint sequence into a target waypoint sequence in a dead reckoning (DR) coordinate system (See claim 1 rejection above).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dead reckoning positioning system of Zhu to include the processor, memory and instructions for position and heading angle determination of Carter, the conversion of an angle to a slope of OkoduwaSTEM, and the transformation matrix for converting between coordinate systems of Christopher Lum with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to estimate an objects present position based on one or more prior positions, heading and speed (Carter col. 1 line 65 – col. 2 line 2), to find the slope of a line (OkoduwaSTEM: 0:00-0:30), and to express vectors in coordinate frames that are rotated and translated from one another (Christopher Lum: video description).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Zhu, Carter, OkoduwaSTEM, and Christopher Lum discloses a vehicle (Carter col. 3 lines 10-13: the wheeled device may be a vehicle, a cart, a carrier, a conveyance, a transport, a gurney, a carriage, a wagon, a measuring wheel, or any other device comprising a wheel), comprising:
at least one processor (Carter: processor 220 in Fig. 2A); and
a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor (Carter col. 16 lines 47-50: the processor 220 includes a digital signal processor (DSP), an analog-to-digital converter (ADC), on-board memory (including flash memory, RAM, and/or ROM));
wherein a computer program executable by the at least one processor is stored in the memory (Carter col. 16 lines 57-64: the modules may implement the processor's functions (e.g., position determination) differently or in a different order. As used herein, the term module refers to logic embodied in hardware or firmware, or to a collection of software instructions, possibly having entry and exit points, written in a programming language, such as, for example, C, C++, or FORTRAN), and the computer program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform the vehicle waypoint determination method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dead reckoning positioning system of Zhu modified by the heading angle determination of Carter, the conversion of an angle to a slope of OkoduwaSTEM, and the transformation matrix for converting between coordinate systems of Christopher Lum to further include the processor, memory and instructions for position and heading angle determination of Carter with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to estimate an objects present position based on one or more prior positions, heading and speed (Carter col. 1 line 65 – col. 2 line 2).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Zhu, Carter, OkoduwaSTEM, and Christopher Lum discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer instructions stored thereon (Carter col. 16 lines 57-64: the modules may implement the processor's functions (e.g., position determination) differently or in a different order. As used herein, the term module refers to logic embodied in hardware or firmware, or to a collection of software instructions, possibly having entry and exit points, written in a programming language, such as, for example, C, C++, or FORTRAN), wherein the computer instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform:
acquiring an original waypoint sequence of a vehicle in a geodetic coordinate system (See claim 1 rejection above);
converting the original waypoint sequence into an intermediate waypoint sequence in a coordinate system with an origin being a starting waypoint of a way of the vehicle (See claim 1 rejection above);
determining a slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence (See claim 1 rejection above); and
converting, according to the slope of each waypoint in the intermediate waypoint sequence, the intermediate waypoint sequence into a target waypoint sequence in a dead reckoning (DR) coordinate system (See claim 1 rejection above).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dead reckoning positioning system of Zhu to include the processor, memory and instructions for position and heading angle determination of Carter, the conversion of an angle to a slope of OkoduwaSTEM, and the transformation matrix for converting between coordinate systems of Christopher Lum with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to estimate an objects present position based on one or more prior positions, heading and speed (Carter col. 1 line 65 – col. 2 line 2), to find the slope of a line (OkoduwaSTEM: 0:00-0:30), and to express vectors in coordinate frames that are rotated and translated from one another (Christopher Lum: video description).
Claim 15 recites analogous limitations to claim 4, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 16 recites analogous limitations to claim 5, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 17 recites analogous limitations to claim 6, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 18 recites analogous limitations to claim 7, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 19 recites analogous limitations to claim 8, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 20 recites analogous limitations to claim 9, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 104359492 by Zhu (herein after “Zhu”), in view of U.S. Patent No. US 8,046,160 by Carter et al. (herein after “Carter”), “How SLOPE equals Tangent of an Angel” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYzibcWUPCU by OkoduwaSTEM (herein after “OkoduwaSTEM”), and “Using a Homogenous Transformation Matrix to Combine Rotation and Translation” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LftL6dA6tzE by Christopher Lum (herein after “Christopher Lum”), further in view of “UTM and UPS” at https://www.oc.nps.edu/oc2902w/maps/utmups.pdf by James R. Clynch (herein after Clynch”).
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application. Text written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Zhu discloses wherein converting the original waypoint sequence into the intermediate waypoint sequence in the coordinate system with the origin being the starting waypoint of the way of the vehicle comprises:
performing coordinate conversion on the first waypoint sequence to obtain a second waypoint sequence in the coordinate system with the origin being the starting waypoint of the way of the vehicle, and using the second waypoint sequence as the intermediate waypoint sequence (Zhu pg. 2: Set the local coordinate system with the starting point of the test vehicle as the origin, convert the GPS latitude and longitude coordinates and the dead reckoning coordinates in step (2) into local coordinate system coordinates).
It is noted that the combination of Zhu discloses converting coordinates in latitude and longitude to a local coordinate system but fails to explicitly teach projecting the original waypoint sequence to obtain a first waypoint sequence; and performing coordinate translation on the first waypoint sequence to obtain a second waypoint sequence in the coordinate system.
However, Clynch, solving a similar problem, teaches projecting the original waypoint sequence to obtain a first waypoint sequence (Clynch pg. 3 section II(B) and pg. 4 section II(C): The formula for the x and y coordinates are usually written in terms of B. x = Rk0 ½ ln(1+B/1-B), y = Rk0 arctan(tan(Φ)/cos(λ – λ0)) where Φ represents latitude, λ represents longitude, λ0 represents longitude of the central meridian, k0 is a scale factor, and B = cos(Φ)sin(λ – λ0).
Further, Christopher Lum, solving a similar problem, teaches performing coordinate translation on the first waypoint sequence to obtain a second waypoint sequence in the coordinate system (Christopher Lum: 28:20-29:40).
PNG
media_image6.png
928
1325
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Christopher Lum at 29:40, above, shows the translation vector for translating points between a vehicle coordinate system (xb, yb) and a reference coordinate system (xr, yr).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dead reckoning positioning system of Zhu modified by the heading angle determination of Carter, the conversion of an angle to a slope of OkoduwaSTEM, and the transformation matrix for converting between coordinate systems of Christopher Lum to further include the UTM projection of Clynch and the translation vector of Christopher Lum with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to align coordinates expressed as a latitude and longitude with UTM coordinates used in many charts and maps based on the Military Grid Reference System (Clynch pg. 1 section I) and to express vectors in coordinate frames that are rotated and translated from one another (Christopher Lum: video description).
Regarding claim 3, Zhu fails to explicitly disclose wherein an abscissa in a coordinate system which the first waypoint sequence belongs to represents a distance from a waypoint to a central meridian of a longitude zone, and an ordinate in the coordinate system represents a distance from a waypoint to an equator.
However, Clynch, solving a similar problem, teaches wherein an abscissa in a coordinate system which the first waypoint sequence belongs to represents a distance from a waypoint to a central meridian of a longitude zone, and an ordinate in the coordinate system represents a distance from a waypoint to an equator (Clynch pg. 5 section II(C)).
PNG
media_image7.png
638
695
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Clynch shows UTM coordinates with an abscissa, x-coordinate or Easting as a distance from a central meridian line (red arrow) of a longitudinal zone and UTM coordinates with an ordinate, y-coordinate or Northing as a distance from an equatorial line (blue arrow) of a longitudinal zone.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dead reckoning positioning system of Zhu modified by the heading angle determination of Carter, the conversion of an angle to a slope of OkoduwaSTEM, the transformation matrix including a translation vector for converting between coordinate systems of Christopher Lum, and the UTM projection of Clynch to explicitly include the Northing and Easting coordinate definitions within a UTM longitudinal zone of Clynch with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to align coordinates expressed as a latitude and longitude with UTM coordinates used in many charts and maps based on the Military Grid Reference System (Clynch pg. 1 section I).
Claim 13 recites analogous limitations to claim 2, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 14 recites analogous limitations to claim 3, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P LANGHORNE whose telephone number is (571)272-5670. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/N.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights