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 .
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, 2, 6, 7are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
According to step 1 claim 1 is an apparatus.
According to step 2A, prong 1 the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
That is Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 s mobile object positioning device.
Independent claim 1 recites:
-a processor to execute a program,
-a memory to store the program which, …….,
-a sensor information obtainment unit….,
-the sensor value being detected by a sensor,
-a sideslip angle estimation unit…….,
-estimating a sideslip angle of the mobile object using the sensor value,
-an inertial positioning unit to perform performing inertial positioning..,
-estimating the sideslip angle based on a mixture model and the sensor value..,
-weighting a plurality of motion models on the mobile object based on….,
-integrating the plurality of motion models.
These limitations are directed to collecting data and comparing intangible data and also for using an algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition.
In addition the claims recite steps of:
-estimating a sideslip angle of the mobile object using the sensor value,
-an inertial positioning unit to perform performing inertial positioning..,
-estimating the sideslip angle based on a mixture model and the sensor value..,
-performing inertial positioning of the mobile object….,
-weighting a plurality of motion models on the mobile object based on….,
-integrating the plurality of motion models.
These steps are mathematical operations done within the internals of a processor without producing any output for implementing a tangible method or process or practical application.
According to step 2A, prong 2 the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In furtherance, the claims have an additional elements of :
-a processor to execute a program,
-a memory to store the program which, …….,
-a sensor information obtainment unit….,
-a sideslip angle estimation unit…….,
According to step 2B, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements simply apply the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by generally performing a mathematical operation of inertial positioning of the mobile object within the internals of a processor. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims recite an additional element that do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element generally links the use of the judicial exception to performing a general mathematical operation of inertial positioning of the mobile object within the internals of a processor.– see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Applicant may overcome the 101 rejection by reciting a computer or controller that controls a vehicle based on the mathematical computations disclosed above in the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 will be allowed when all rejections are overcome.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Okuda (US 20230365142 A1); Gorshechnikov (US 20160082597 A1) each disclose a similar invention regarding a motion model of a mobile object or vehicle including weighting a plurality of motion models on the mobile object based on state quantities of the mobile object and integrating the plurality of motion models.
In addition, the prior art JP 2020125058A cited in the international report discloses a similar invention including:
The actual vehicle body slip angle information acquisition unit 718 acquires information on the actual vehicle body slip angle β based on the detection value from the vehicle body slip angle sensor 75. When the vehicle body slip angle sensor 75 recognizes the direction of the vehicle due to a change in the vehicle position by, for example, GPS, the vehicle body slip angle sensor 75 detects the actual direction based on the deviation angle between the vehicle body center line passing through the center of gravity and the vehicle traveling direction (=the vehicle direction). The vehicle body slip angle β is detected. The actual vehicle body slip angle β may be obtained by integrating the vehicle body slip angular velocity β′. Here, the vehicle body slip angular velocity β'is
(Vehicle body slip angular velocity β') = (Yaw rate γ)-(Lateral acceleration Gy) / (Vehicle speed V)
The prior art single or combined do not disclose:
“estimating a sideslip angle of the mobile object using the sensor value; and
performing inertial positioning of the mobile object using the sensor value and the sideslip angle,
wherein the estimating includes estimating the sideslip angle based on a mixture model and the sensor value, the mixture model being obtained by weighting a plurality of motion models on the mobile object based on state quantities of the mobile object and integrating the plurality of motion models.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
The invention is directed to a general mobile object positioning device.
The prior art, Ohmura (US 20210325197 A1) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Communications
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs.
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, Mott Adam can be reached on 571 270 5376. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights