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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 11/21/2024 (claimed foreign priority date 08/04/2022):
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
Ln = line, e.g., ln25 = line 25; ln25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
1.1 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.
1.1.1 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 positioning calibration method (i.e., a process). Claim 11 is directed to an electronic device (i.e., machine, manufacture). Claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., machine, manufacture). Therefore, claims 1 and 11-12 are within 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.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
1. A positioning calibration method, comprising:
acquiring navigation information and vehicle-to-everything (V2X) map information of a vehicle;
acquiring road information corresponding to a location of the vehicle based on the acquired navigation information and V2X map information;
obtaining motion trajectory information of the vehicle according to the navigation information; and
obtaining location compensation data according to the road information, the motion trajectory information, and the V2X map information.
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. For example, “position (i.e., data) calibration,” “obtaining [location compensation] data according to …” in the context of this claim encompass a person (driver/operator/user/human, etc.) observing/looking at data collected/gathered (from GNSS module, event triggering module, V2X map module (i.e., sensor(s), detector(s), camera(s)), library/database) and forming a simple judgement. 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”):
1. A positioning calibration method, comprising:
acquiring navigation information and vehicle-to-everything (V2X) map information of a vehicle;
acquiring road information corresponding to a location of the vehicle based on the acquired navigation information and V2X map information;
obtaining motion trajectory information of the vehicle according to the navigation information; and
obtaining location compensation data according to the road information, the motion trajectory information, and the V2X map information.
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 “acquiring navigation information and vehicle-to-everything (V2X) map information of a vehicle; acquiring road information corresponding to a location of the vehicle based on the acquired navigation information and V2X map information; obtaining motion trajectory information of the vehicle according to the navigation information,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (on-board units, in-vehicle terminals, modules, or other portable V2X devices) to perform the process. In particular, the claimed steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering/collecting information/data for obtaining another data step(s)), and amounts to mere pre-solution gathering/collecting/acquiring/obtaining, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “on-board units, in-vehicle terminals, or other portable V2X devices)” merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps.
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 computer 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 using a computer (on-board units, in-vehicle terminals, or other portable V2X devices) to perform the obtaining/gathering/collecting data to obtain other data 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 claimed additional limitations, 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/gathering/collecting data” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the GNSS module, event triggering module, V2X map module (i.e., sensor(s), detector(s), camera(s)), library/database are all conventional GNSS module, event triggering module, V2X map module (i.e., sensor(s), detector(s), camera(s)), library/database mounted on and/or remotely from the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the on-board units, in-vehicle terminals, or other portable V2X devices are anything other than conventional computer(s) within or remote to a vehicle. 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, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 13-20 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. It is unclear what the claimed limitations/features, in dependent claims 2-10 and 13-20, are directed to in order to, or what or how they contribute/improve/influence/affect/innovate vehicle control, or operation, or use, or handling, or navigation, etc. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 13-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11-12. Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
1. Claims 1-4, 11-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuya (US20170097642).
As per claims 1 and 11-12, Okuya discloses through the invention (see entire document) a positioning calibration method/electronic device/non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (abstract, numerous paragraphs – teaching determining in which one of the lanes of the road the vehicle was traveling as the vehicle location was measured, and geometrically comparing at least one traveled lane of the road acquired from the determination and the locational trajectory, and based on the comparison, calculating a locational correction amount of the location of the vehicle), comprising:
a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable by the processor (fig. 1, 3, 10, Para [0042-0043]);
acquiring navigation information and vehicle-to-everything (V2X) map information of a vehicle (fig. 1-2, 10, 17, Para [0010-0011, 0015, 0022, 0030, 0034, 0036-0040, 0051-0052, 0054, 0056, 0070, 0074, 0077, 0081-0082, 0084-0085, 0087, 0089, 0125-0138] – teaching acquiring the map information about the surroundings of the own vehicle from the map information storage 20; an environment recognizer 90 configured to recognize positions of white lines around the own vehicle using surroundings information, such as images and range points, acquired from the peripheral monitoring sensor 80 formed of camera, lidar, millimeter-wave radar and is used to acquire environmental information, such as images of surroundings of the own vehicle and range points);
acquiring road information corresponding to a location of the vehicle based on the acquired navigation information and V2X map information (fig. 2, 9, 17, abstract, Para [0010-0013, 0015, 0022, 0030, 0034-0040, 0051-0052, 0054, 0056, 0059, 0061, 0070-0071, 0074-0075, 0077, 0092-0094, 0125-0138] – teaching map information configuration and map information acquisition; map information storage 20 that includes a storage media, such as a semiconductor memory, a hard disk, an optical disc or the like, storing map information usable to recognize traffic lanes; map information stored in the storage media of the map information storage 20 that includes at least one of lane information indicative of locations (each specified by e.g., latitude, longitude, and altitude) of nodes in the lateral center of each lane of each road, boundary information indicative of locations of boundaries (e.g., white lines) of each lane of each road, and road information indicative of a location and a shape (e.g., a curvature, a gradient, the number of lanes, a width and the like) of each road; determining in which one of the lanes of the road the vehicle was traveling as the vehicle location was measured, and geometrically comparing at least one traveled lane of the road acquired from the determination and the locational trajectory, and based on the comparison, calculating a locational correction amount of the location of the vehicle);
obtaining motion trajectory information of the vehicle according to the navigation information (fig. 6-7, abstract, Para [0010-0012, 0016-0018, 0022, 0024, 0029, 0040-0064, 0068-0077, 0080, 0084-0098, 0104-0108] – teaching generating a locational trajectory of the vehicle based on the location of the vehicle measured by the satellite positioning unit); and
obtaining location compensation data according to the road information, the motion trajectory information, and the V2X map information (fig. 6-7, abstract, Para [0012, 0019-0020, 0050-0055, 0064-0072, 0090-0094, 0108, 0116-0119, 0128, 0135, 0139] – teaching, for each of the vehicle locations included in the locational trajectory, determining in which one of the lanes of the road the vehicle was traveling as the vehicle location was measured, and geometrically comparing at least one traveled lane of the road acquired from the determination and the locational trajectory, and based on the comparison, calculating a locational correction amount of the location of the vehicle).
Okuya does not explicitly discloses thorough the invention, or is missing acquiring V2X map information.
However, it was known in the art at the time of Applicant's filing that a V2X map information was a common thing, e.g., Vehicle-to-Infrastructure/Everything (including road/lane/pavement marking) in an environment around vehicle information; and that it can be obtained from a database, such as a map database, that was recorded/stored/memorized in the past, and thereby representing a historical information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Okuya teaching such that it comprises a stored map information usable to recognize traffic lanes. The result of such a combination would have been predictable and would not change the operation of Okuya. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to correct the location of the vehicle based on the locational trajectory and map information stored in a map information storage (see entire Okuya document, particularly abstract).
As per claims 2 and 13, Okuya further discloses through the invention (see entire document) after the obtaining location compensation data according to the road information, the motion trajectory information, the navigation information, and the V2X map information, the method comprises: obtaining positioning information according to the location compensation data, the navigation information, and the V2X map information (Para [0033, 0068, 0073, 0086, 0088-0089] – teaching detecting a location of the vehicle and correcting for detection errors, and outputting the corrected location of the vehicle to various driving assistance devices, such as a navigation unit and the like; corrected location information P[tc] stored in the memory and fed to various driving assistance devices, such as a navigation device mounted in the own vehicle; calculating a path length A of a trajectory from the current location specified by the corrected location information Pq[tc] to a location specified by corrected location information Pq[i]).
As per claims 3 and 14, Okuya further discloses through the invention (see entire document) road information that comprises lane driving direction information; motion trajectory information that comprises vehicle driving direction information; and obtaining location compensation data according to the road information, the motion trajectory information, and the V2X map information that comprises: acquiring first lane data in the V2X map information according to the lane driving direction information; acquiring second lane data in the V2X map information according to the vehicle driving direction information; and calculating the location compensation data according to the first lane data and the second lane data (fig. 12, Para [0083, 0098, 0101-0102] – teaching azimuth angle φ as a clockwise angle with respect to a reference direction, such as the North direction, that corresponds to a trajectory angle; comparing the azimuth angle φ with a direction of the lane (or a lane angle), determining whether or not the travel direction of the own vehicle differs from the direction of the traveled lane; based on an angle difference between the travel direction of the own vehicle and the direction of the lane, possibility to determine whether or not there is a lane change of the own vehicle).
As per claims 4, 15 and 20, Okuya further discloses through the invention (see entire document) location compensation data that comprises at least one of: direction data, or distance data (Para [0040, 0072, 0128] – teaching sampling the location of the own vehicle via the satellite positioning unit 10 every predetermined time interval to generate a locational trajectory as the own vehicle travels a predetermined distance; setting the locational correction amount candidate Pc[k] used to generate the determined corrected trajectory Pa[t] associated with the shortest average distance L as the locational correction amount of the current vehicle location, where the determined corrected trajectory Pa[t] is the locational trajectory that best matches the traveled lane; using the generated lane information, a degree of geometrical matching between the travel path of the own vehicle acquired from the limited trajectory point sequence and each lane of the road calculated as an average distance L, and based on the average distances, the locational correction amount estimated).
2. Claims 5-6, 8, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuya in view of Barton (US6597987).
As per claims 5 and 16, Okuya further discloses through the invention (see entire document) obtaining location compensation data according to the road information, the motion trajectory information, and the V2X map information that comprises: calculating the location compensation data according to the road information, the motion trajectory information, the V2X map information, and historical compensation data. (fig. 1, abstract, Para [0010-0011, 0034, 0036, 0039-0040] – teaching correcting the location of the vehicle based on the locational trajectory and map information stored in a map information storage).
Okuya does not explicitly discloses thorough the invention, or is missing historical compensation data that comprises location compensation data acquired from the past.
However, Barton discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in c2, ln20-36; c4, ln16-22, ln38-65; c6, ln25-28; c8, ln26-34 – teaching a correction factor that may be used for 10-20 minutes, it is preferable not to wait until a correction factor become stale before calculating a new correction factor; determining a new correction factor even though a prior correction factor is still valid; the accuracy of a correction factor that deteriorates with time, a freshly obtained correction factor would be expected to be at least slightly superior to a correction factor that is even a few minutes old; the prior correction factor that is more than 10-20 minutes old.
The Examiner finds that the “prior and/or correction factor,” in the Barton reference, teaches on “compensation data that comprises location compensation data acquired from the past” in the instant application.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Okuya by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Barton, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to determine the position of the vehicle relative to a road network; to determine the position of the vehicle with respect to the roads represented by the data contained in the geographic database with a relatively high degree of accuracy; to determine a correction factor, which is an offset (i.e., a distance and direction) of the GPS position reported during the event to the known-to-be-highly-accurate position; to use the correction factor to adjust subsequently obtained GPS readings (see entire Barton document, particularly abstract).
As per claims 6 and 17, Okuya further discloses through the invention (see entire document) calculating the location compensation data according to the road information, the motion trajectory information, the V2X map information, and historical compensation data that comprises: calculating current compensation data according to the road information, the motion trajectory information, and the V2X map information (fig. 1, abstract, Para [0010-0011, 0034, 0036, 0039-0040] – teaching correcting the location of the vehicle based on the locational trajectory and map information).
Okuya does not explicitly discloses thorough the invention, or is missing calculating the location compensation data according to the current compensation data and the historical compensation data.
However, Barton discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in c2, ln20-36; c4, ln16-22, ln38-65; c6, ln25-28; c8, ln26-34 – teaching a correction factor that may be used for 10-20 minutes, it is preferable not to wait until a correction factor become stale before calculating a new correction factor; determining a new correction factor even though a prior correction factor is still valid; the accuracy of a correction factor that deteriorates with time, a freshly obtained correction factor would be expected to be at least slightly superior to a correction factor that is even a few minutes old; the prior correction factor that is more than 10-20 minutes old.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Okuya by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Barton, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to determine the position of the vehicle relative to a road network; to determine the position of the vehicle with respect to the roads represented by the data contained in the geographic database with a relatively high degree of accuracy; to determine a correction factor, which is an offset (i.e., a distance and direction) of the GPS position reported during the event to the known-to-be-highly-accurate position; to use the correction factor to adjust subsequently obtained GPS readings (see entire Barton document, particularly abstract).
As per claims 8 and 19, Okuya does not explicitly discloses thorough the invention, or is missing historical compensation data obtained according to at least one of: a time threshold, wherein historical compensation data that falls within the time threshold is acquired; or a distance threshold, wherein historical compensation data that falls within the distance threshold is acquired.
However, Barton discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in c2, ln20-36; c4, ln38 through c5, ln4; c5, ln 46-52; – teaching prior correction factor; the correction factor that is an offset (i.e., a distance and direction) of the GPS position reported during the event to the known-to-be-highly-accurate position; the correction factor used to adjust subsequently obtained GPS readings for a limited period of time; correction factor and the time of the event as then stored.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Okuya by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Barton, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to determine the position of the vehicle relative to a road network; to determine the position of the vehicle with respect to the roads represented by the data contained in the geographic database with a relatively high degree of accuracy; to determine a correction factor, which is an offset (i.e., a distance and direction) of the GPS position reported during the event to the known-to-be-highly-accurate position; to use the correction factor to adjust subsequently obtained GPS readings (see entire Barton document, particularly abstract).
3. Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Okuya and Barton, further in view of HUANG (CN102129078A).
As per claims 7 and 18, Okuya does not explicitly discloses thorough the invention, or is missing summarizing and averaging the current compensation data and the historical compensation data to obtain average compensation data; and confirming the location compensation data according to the average compensation data.
However, HUANG discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in abstract, Para [0007, 0012, 0023-0050, 0052, 0065, 0070, 0075, 0083, 0089, 0113-0114, 0123] – teaching calculating average displacement M of the vehicles at each acquisition interval by taking distance between the current GPS data point and a historical positioning data point as a numerator and the acquisition interval between the current GPS data point and the historical positioning data point as a denominator; calculating the average displacement M of the vehicle when the vehicle is in motion, combining it with historical positioning data; comparing this average displacement M with a pre-set upper limit value to determine whether the current GPS data is abnormal; abnormal GPS data discarded, and normal GPS data is used as historical positioning data.
The Examiner finds that the above cited in the paragraphs in the HUANG reference, teach on “summarizing and averaging current compensation data and historical compensation data to obtain average compensation data” in the instant application, because it is well known in the art that “averaging (or arithmetic mean) calculates the central value of a data set by summing all observations and dividing by the total count of observations, which represents a "typical" value, commonly used for data analysis, performance metrics, and inventory valuation.” (https://www.google.com/search?q=averaging – last accessed on 03/18/2026). Therefore averaging inherently requires summing/summarizing.
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Okuya by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HUANG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to solve the problem of poor data reliability during the uploading of the position information of the vehicles, acquired directly in real time within the uploading time (see entire HUANG document, particularly abstract); to upload vehicle location data, which can utilize the correct GPS data obtained within the upload time interval to eliminate the problem of unreliable real-time location data caused by GPS device failure to locate or abnormal GPS data (see entire HUANG document, particularly Para [0006]).
4. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuya in view of George (US20250050916).
As per claim 9, Okuya further discloses through the invention (see entire document) calculating the location compensation data according to the road information, the motion trajectory information, the V2X map information, and user feedback information (abstract, Para [0010-0011, 0034, 0036, 0039-0040]).
Okuya does not explicitly discloses thorough the invention, or is missing calculating the location compensation data according to user feedback information.
However, George discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 2-3, Para [0010, 0127] – teaching driver providing feedback to the control system 2 where the correct lane 11 might be located.
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Okuya by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by George, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide an improved method for operating a vehicle (see entire George document, particularly Para [0003]); to improve lane keeping functionality (see entire George document, particularly Para [0127]).
As per claim 10, Okuya does not explicitly discloses thorough the invention, or is missing in response to the user feedback information indicating that the location compensation data is accurate, increasing a confidence level of the corresponding location compensation data; and in response to the user feedback information indicating that the location compensation data is erroneous, decreasing the confidence level of the corresponding location compensation data.
However, George discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 2-3, Para [0010, 0127] – teaching driver providing feedback to the control system 2 where the correct lane 11 might be located; virtual lane 23 that may, in addition to the driver's feedback, also be determined based on positional data M.sub.1, M.sub.L, M.sub.R, 30, 31, 32 of other vehicles 19, 20, 21 in the region of interest 22 (FIG. 2).
The Examiner finds that the “virtual lane that may, in addition to the driver's feedback, also be determined based on positional data of other vehicles in the region of interest,” in the George reference, teach on “increasing/decreasing confidence level of corresponding location compensation data” in the instant application.
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Okuya by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by George, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide an improved method for operating a vehicle (see entire George document, particularly Para [0003]); to improve lane keeping functionality (see entire George document, particularly Para [0127]).
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
Kim (US20110316685) – (see entire Kim document, particularly abstract – teaching a lane keeping control method and apparatus, and an apparatus for warning of a lane escape; a method and an apparatus for controlling lane keeping and an apparatus for warning of an escape from a lane, which generate a lane escape warning only on a specific condition in which a vehicle is expected to actually escape from a lane, so that the apparatus and method can reduce the generation of an unnecessary lane escape warning that may cause the inconvenience of a driver).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. 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.
/YURI KAN, P.E./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662