DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 3/11/2026. In the amendment, claim 20 have been amended. Overall, claims 11-20 are pending in this application.
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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11, 13, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub No. US 2018/0126936 A1 to Nell et. al. (Nell) in view of Pub No. US 2008/0039994 A1 to Mannerfelt (Mannerfelt).
In Reference to Claim 11
Nell teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A method comprising:
determining, during a driving operation of a vehicle comprising an inertial measurement sensor system and a level senor, a misalignment of a sensor coordinate system of the inertial measurement sensor system with respect to a vehicle coordinate system (see at least Nell Fig.1 and paragraph [0017] “FIG. 1 shows in a simplified representation a motor vehicle 1 which has a reference coordinate system (COG) and an inertial sensor 2 which acquires accelerations in three spatial directions x, y, z and to this extent has an inertial sensor coordinate system L which, in dependence on the mounting position of the inertial sensor 2, deviates from a reference coordinate system R aligned in parallel with the motor vehicle coordinate system COG. Furthermore, at least one rotational speed sensor, which forms a reference sensor 3, is allocated to at least one of the wheels of the motor vehicle 1. Preferably, two rotational speed sensors are provided overall. The inertial sensor 2 is, for example, connected directly or by a control device to a safety device 4, for example an airbag device, in order if necessary, to trigger the safety device 4, in dependence on measurement data detected by the inertial sensor”);
determining, during the driving operation of the vehicle using the level sensor of the vehicle, whether a level deviation from a reference level exceeds a predetermined threshold value; and
calibrating, based on the determined misalignment, the inertial measurement sensor system during the driving operation of the vehicle and interrupting the calibration when it is determined that the level deviation from the reference level exceeds the predetermined threshold value (see at least Nell Figs.1-2 and paragraph [0019] “In principle, the method is based on a comparison of the measurement data of the measurement variables of the inertial sensor 2, that is to say the accelerations measured in the various spatial directions x, y and z, with correlation data from the reference coordinate system R. For this purpose, measurement data of the measurement variable of the rotational speed sensor are presently detected. The detected rotational speed here does not directly correspond to the acceleration in the x direction detected by the inertial sensor 2 but correlates the rotational speed with the longitudinal acceleration in the x direction of the motor vehicle 1. It is thus possible to calculate from the rotational speed, that is to say from the measurement data of the measurement variable of the reference sensor 3, acceleration values and to compare these with the acceleration values or measurement variables, respectively, of the inertial sensor 2 to determine deviations of measurement data from each other which can then be compensated for or balanced during a calibration of the inertial sensor 2. Initially, it is assumed that the z axis of the inertial sensor 2 corresponds to the vertical vehicle axis. An extension of the method to the three-dimensional space is also conceivable, however. To calculate the mounting angle of the inertial sensor 2, the acceleration values already existing (measurement data of the measurement variables in the x and y direction) are determined from the inertial sensor and the correlation data of the reference sensor 3. In this context, the problem can be abstracted to the model shown in FIG. 2. In this context, the following parameters apply”).
Nell teaches to that three-dimensional space is also conceivable as shown in figure 1 of Nell, however Nell does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to having a level senor, determining, during the driving operation of the vehicle using the level sensor of the vehicle, whether a level deviation from a reference level exceeds a predetermined threshold value; and interrupting the calibration when it is determined that the level deviation from the reference level exceeds the predetermined threshold value. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a level senor, determining, during the driving operation of the vehicle using the level sensor of the vehicle, whether a level deviation from a reference level exceeds a predetermined threshold value; and interrupting the calibration when it is determined that the level deviation from the reference level exceeds the predetermined threshold value. For example, Mannerfelt teaches as to having a level sensor (4), determining, during the driving operation of the vehicle using the level sensor (4) of the vehicle, whether a level deviation from a reference level exceeds a predetermined threshold value; and interrupting the calibration when it is determined that the level deviation from the reference level exceeds the predetermined threshold value. Mannerfelt further teaches that having such structure and steps provides for a reduced risk for accidents and reduced costs for repair work by notifying the user that the absorbers needs to be replaced (see at least Mannerfelt Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 4, 35-37, 49, 55, 59-60). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nell with the structure of level sensor as steps of determining, during the driving operation of the vehicle using the level sensor of the vehicle, whether a level deviation from a reference level exceeds a predetermined threshold value; and interrupting the calibration when it is determined that the level deviation from the reference level exceeds the predetermined threshold value as taught by Mannerfelt in order to provide for a reduced risk for accidents and reduced costs for repair work by notifying the user that the absorbers needs to be replaced.
In Reference to Claim 13
The method of claim 11 (see rejection to claim 11 above), wherein the vehicle coordinate system is defined in such a way that a plane spanned by a transverse axis of the vehicle and a longitudinal axis of the vehicle runs parallel to a driving surface plane under predetermined normal conditions (see at least Nell Figs.1-2 and paragraph [0018] “The inertial sensor 2 acquires at least three measurement variables, namely accelerations in the three spatial directions x, y and z. In order to reliably ensure a triggering of the safety device 4, the actual mounting position of the inertial sensor 2 must be taken into consideration in order to be able to calibrate it so that a coordinate system L corresponds to the reference coordinate system R. For this purpose, the following method is proposed”).
In Reference to Claim 16
The method of claim 11 (see rejection to claim 11 above), wherein the calibration is performed during driving operation of the vehicle in a predetermined time period (operating period) (see at least Nell Figs.1-2 and abstract and paragraphs 17-19).
In Reference to Claim 19
The method of claim 11 (see rejection to claim 11 above), wherein the calibration is based on at least one learning algorithm (see at least Nell Figs.1-2 and paragraph [0039] “Using this method, it is possible that the inertial sensor 2 determines the real mounting position of the inertial sensor 2 in relation to the motor vehicle coordinate system in self-learning manner, particularly without additional hardware, if the rotational speed sensor 3 usually present in any case in the motor vehicle is accessed or manual input of parameters. By this means, a calibration of the inertial sensor 2 is possible in a simple manner. The inertial sensor 2 is, in particular, an inertial sensor permanently integrated in the vehicle, for example as a component of a safety system, particularly of an ESP braking system of the vehicle. Alternatively, according to a further exemplary embodiment, not shown here, the inertial sensor can also be the inertial sensor of a mobile computer which is arranged kept in the motor vehicle, wherein, when the method described before is carried out, the mounting position of the mobile computer in the motor vehicle is determined in a simple manner”)
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nell in view of Mannerfelt and further in view of Pub No. US 2021/0149020 A1 to Pinnock (Pinnock).
In Reference to Claim 12
Nell in view of Mannerfelt teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The method of claim 11 (see rejection to claim 11 above), wherein the determination of the misalignment of the sensor coordinate system with respect to the vehicle coordinate system is based on a static pitch angle determined from an alignment of a longitudinal axis of the sensor coordinate system with a longitudinal axis of the vehicle coordinate system (see at least Nell Figs.1-2 and paragraphs 17-19).
Nell in view of Mannerfelt does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the determination of the misalignment of the sensor coordinate system with respect to the vehicle coordinate system is based on a static pitch angle determined from an alignment of a longitudinal axis of the sensor coordinate system with a longitudinal axis of the vehicle coordinate system. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the determination of the misalignment of the sensor coordinate system with respect to the vehicle coordinate system is based on a static pitch angle determined from an alignment of a longitudinal axis of the sensor coordinate system with a longitudinal axis of the vehicle coordinate system. For example, Pinnock teaches to the determination of the misalignment of the sensor coordinate system with respect to the vehicle coordinate system is based on a static pitch angle determined from an alignment of a longitudinal axis of the sensor coordinate system with a longitudinal axis of the vehicle coordinate system. Pinnock further teaches that performing such step provides accurate measurement of the misalignment (see at least Pinnock Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 9, 13-15, 35, 55, 59, 108). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nell in view of Mannerfelt to include the determination of the misalignment of the sensor coordinate system with respect to the vehicle coordinate system is based on a static pitch angle as taught by Pinnock in order to accurate measurement of the misalignment.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nell in view of Mannerfelt and further in view of Pub No. US 2018/0154902 A1 to Shami (Shami).
In Reference to Claim 14
Nell in view of Mannerfelt teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The method of claim 11 (see rejection to claim 11 above), further comprising:
estimating an acting gravitational acceleration based a determined alignment of the sensor coordinate system, map data from a digital road map, and an inclination of the vehicle with respect to a driving surface plane; comparing, during the driving operation of the vehicle in time periods without further acceleration, an acceleration measured by the inertial measurement sensor system with the estimated gravitational acceleration; and determining, based on the comparing, an offset of the inertial measurement sensor system with respect to the acceleration measured by the inertial measurement sensor system (see at least Nell Figs.1-2 and paragraphs 17-19).
Nell in view of Mannerfelt does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to estimating an acting gravitational acceleration based a determined alignment of the sensor coordinate system, map data from a digital road map, and an inclination of the vehicle with respect to a driving surface plane; comparing, during the driving operation of the vehicle in time periods without further acceleration, an acceleration measured by the inertial measurement sensor system with the estimated gravitational acceleration; and determining, based on the comparing, an offset of the inertial measurement sensor system with respect to the acceleration measured by the inertial measurement sensor system. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to estimating an acting gravitational acceleration based a determined alignment of the sensor coordinate system, map data from a digital road map, and an inclination of the vehicle with respect to a driving surface plane; comparing, during the driving operation of the vehicle in time periods without further acceleration, an acceleration measured by the inertial measurement sensor system with the estimated gravitational acceleration; and determining, based on the comparing, an offset of the inertial measurement sensor system with respect to the acceleration measured by the inertial measurement sensor system. For example, Shami teaches to estimating an acting gravitational acceleration based a determined alignment of the sensor coordinate system, map data from a digital road map, and an inclination of the vehicle with respect to a driving surface plane; comparing, during the driving operation of the vehicle in time periods without further acceleration, an acceleration measured by the inertial measurement sensor system with the estimated gravitational acceleration; and determining, based on the comparing, an offset of the inertial measurement sensor system with respect to the acceleration measured by the inertial measurement sensor system. Shami further teaches that performing such steps prevents unintended false influences of acceleration data from the inertial measurement unit (see at least Shami Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 1, 31, 37, 43-44 and 50). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nell in view of Mannerfelt with steps of estimating an acting gravitational acceleration based a determined alignment of the sensor coordinate system, map data from a digital road map, and an inclination of the vehicle with respect to a driving surface plane; comparing, during the driving operation of the vehicle in time periods without further acceleration, an acceleration measured by the inertial measurement sensor system with the estimated gravitational acceleration; and determining, based on the comparing, an offset of the inertial measurement sensor system with respect to the acceleration measured by the inertial measurement sensor system as taught by Shami in order to prevent unintended false influences of acceleration data from the inertial measurement unit.
In Reference to Claim 15
The method of claim 14 (see rejection to claim 14 above), further comprising:
checking, using map data of a digital road map, whether there is a change in an inclination of the driving surface plane in a predetermined section, and checking, using an optical environment detection sensor system of the vehicle, that profile changes of the driving surface plane do not exceed a predetermined threshold value in the predetermined section (see at least Shami Figs.1-3 and paragraph [0020] “As described in greater detail further below, and according to an exemplary embodiment, the vehicle 100 includes various cameras 101, 103 and/or other sensors 167 from which road angle can be derived as well as a vehicle control system 102 for determining at least one acceleration offset and controlling at least one vehicle function based on the at least one acceleration offset. In the depicted embodiment, the cameras include visual cameras 103 and lidar cameras 101 distributed around the vehicle including at front, rear and both sides of the vehicle 100. Other imaging devices than visual and lidar cameras may be utilized. The cameras may obtain video data, which includes images obtained at a high frame rate, or lower time frequency images. It will be appreciated that the number and/or location of cameras 101, 103 may vary in different embodiments. The other sensors 167 may include at least one level sensor arranged to measure longitudinal and/lateral road angle, i.e. longitudinal road gradient and/or road banking angle”); determining, using the inertial measurement sensor system, a rotation of the vehicle in space; determining, using the level sensor, a relative rotation of the vehicle in relation to the driving surface plane; and if there is no change in the inclination of the driving surface plane and the profile changes of the driving surface plane do not exceed the predetermined threshold value, an offset of a rotation rate sensor of the inertial measurement sensor system is determined by comparing the rotation determined by the inertial measurement sensor system with the relative rotation determined by the level sensor (see at least Shami Figs.1-3 and 6 and paragraph [0067] “In step 508, road image or video data is read from the cameras 101, 103. In step 510, road image analysis is performed to simplify the image data for subsequent road angle data extraction steps 512, 514. In particular, image analysis step 510 may entail image filtering and segmentation processes. In step 512, horizontal reference markers and road angle markers are identified in the processed image data from step 510 as described above with reference to FIGS. 7 and 8. The reference markers may be in the form of lines. The horizontal markers may be identified based on road or roadside features that are generally horizontally oriented, such as building features, e.g. roof lines, window lines, door lines, roadside infrastructure features such as street lights, walls, road signs (which are generally vertical allowing horizontal to be derived) and natural features such as the horizon, amongst numerous possibilities. The road angle markers may be identified based on road or roadside features indicative of the road angle, such as road markings, curb features, pavement-building interface, etc. In step 514, based on the identified horizontal reference and road angle markers from step 512, road angle data {right arrow over (θ)} can be calculated using a trigonometric function, for example. The calculated road angle data {right arrow over (θ)} is established in step 518 as the road angle data {right arrow over (θ)} for subsequent calculations. In step 516, the road angle data {right arrow over (θ)} is stored in the enhanced digital map 184 using the GPS data to determine the correct location”).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nell in view of Mannerfelt and further in view of Pu No. US 2011/0029275 A1 to Kennedy et. al. (Kennedy).
In Reference to Claims 17 and 18
Nell in view of Mannerfelt teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The method of claim 16 (see rejection to claim 16 above), wherein the calibration is based on a recording and evaluation of a plurality of values of a longitudinal acceleration and lateral acceleration of the vehicle performed in the predetermined time period (operating period); wherein long-term average values are formed from the plurality of recorded values of the longitudinal acceleration and lateral acceleration of the vehicle and the calibration is performed using the long-term average values. (see at least Nell Figs.1-2 and abstract and paragraphs 17-19).
Nell in view of Mannerfelt do not explicitly teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations above) as to recording the plurality of values and long-term average values are formed from the plurality of recorded values to use in the calibration mode. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to record the plurality of values and long-term average values are formed from the plurality of recorded values to use in the calibration mode. For example, Kennedy teaches to record the plurality of values and long-term average values are formed from the plurality of recorded values to use in the calibration mode. Further, Kennedy implicitly teaches that performing such step provides accurate calibration mode (see at least Kennedy Fig. 1 and paragraphs 4, 23). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nell in view of Mannerfelt to incorporate the step to record the plurality of values and long-term average values are formed from the plurality of recorded values to use in the calibration mode as taught by Kennedy in order to provide accurate calibration mode.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nell in view of Mannerfelt and further in view of Pub No. US 2023/0066919 A1 to Navin et. al. (Navin) and further in view of Pub No. US 2023/0001847 A1 to Child et. al. (Child).
In Reference to Claim 20
Nell teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A method comprising:
calibrating an inertial measurement sensor system of a vehicle, which comprises a level sensor by
determining, during a driving operation of a vehicle comprising an inertial measurement sensor system and a level senor, a misalignment of a sensor coordinate system of the inertial measurement sensor system with respect to a vehicle coordinate system (see at least Nell Fig.1 and paragraph [0017] “FIG. 1 shows in a simplified representation a motor vehicle 1 which has a reference coordinate system (COG) and an inertial sensor 2 which acquires accelerations in three spatial directions x, y, z and to this extent has an inertial sensor coordinate system L which, in dependence on the mounting position of the inertial sensor 2, deviates from a reference coordinate system R aligned in parallel with the motor vehicle coordinate system COG. Furthermore, at least one rotational speed sensor, which forms a reference sensor 3, is allocated to at least one of the wheels of the motor vehicle 1. Preferably, two rotational speed sensors are provided overall. The inertial sensor 2 is, for example, connected directly or by a control device to a safety device 4, for example an airbag device, in order if necessary, to trigger the safety device 4, in dependence on measurement data detected by the inertial sensor”);
determining, during the driving operation of the vehicle using the level sensor of the vehicle, whether a level deviation from a reference level exceeds a predetermined threshold value; and
calibrating, based on the determined misalignment, the inertial measurement sensor system during the driving operation of the vehicle and interrupting the calibration when it is determined that the level deviation from the reference value exceeds the predetermined threshold value (see at least Nell Figs.1-2 and paragraph [0019] “In principle, the method is based on a comparison of the measurement data of the measurement variables of the inertial sensor 2, that is to say the accelerations measured in the various spatial directions x, y and z, with correlation data from the reference coordinate system R. For this purpose, measurement data of the measurement variable of the rotational speed sensor are presently detected. The detected rotational speed here does not directly correspond to the acceleration in the x direction detected by the inertial sensor 2 but correlates the rotational speed with the longitudinal acceleration in the x direction of the motor vehicle 1. It is thus possible to calculate from the rotational speed, that is to say from the measurement data of the measurement variable of the reference sensor 3, acceleration values and to compare these with the acceleration values or measurement variables, respectively, of the inertial sensor 2 to determine deviations of measurement data from each other which can then be compensated for or balanced during a calibration of the inertial sensor 2. Initially, it is assumed that the z axis of the inertial sensor 2 corresponds to the vertical vehicle axis. An extension of the method to the three-dimensional space is also conceivable, however. To calculate the mounting angle of the inertial sensor 2, the acceleration values already existing (measurement data of the measurement variables in the x and y direction) are determined from the inertial sensor and the correlation data of the reference sensor 3. In this context, the problem can be abstracted to the model shown in FIG. 2. In this context, the following parameters apply”);
determining, using the calibrated inertial measurement sensor system, an alignment of the vehicle relative to a driving surface plane; and
controlling a range of a headlight of the vehicle depending on the determined alignment.
Nell teaches to that three-dimensional space is also conceivable as shown in figure 1 of Nell, however Nell does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to having a level senor, determining, during the driving operation of the vehicle using the level sensor of the vehicle, whether a level deviation from a reference level exceeds a predetermined threshold value; and interrupting the calibration when it is determined that the level deviation from the reference level exceeds the predetermined threshold value and determining, using the calibrated inertial measurement sensor system, an alignment of the vehicle relative to a driving surface plane. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a level senor, determining, during the driving operation of the vehicle using the level sensor of the vehicle, whether a level deviation from a reference level exceeds a predetermined threshold value; and interrupting the calibration when it is determined that the level deviation from the reference level exceeds the predetermined threshold value and determining, using the calibrated inertial measurement sensor system, an alignment of the vehicle relative to a driving surface plane. For example, Mannerfelt teaches as to having a level sensor (4), determining, during the driving operation of the vehicle using the level sensor (4) of the vehicle, whether a level deviation from a reference level exceeds a predetermined threshold value; and interrupting the calibration when it is determined that the level deviation from the reference level exceeds the predetermined threshold value. Mannerfelt further teaches that having such structure and steps provides for a reduced risk for accidents and reduced costs for repair work by notifying the user that the absorbers needs to be replaced (see at least Mannerfelt Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 4, 35-37, 49, 55, 59-60). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nell with the structure of level sensor as steps of determining, during the driving operation of the vehicle using the level sensor of the vehicle, whether a level deviation from a reference level exceeds a predetermined threshold value; and interrupting the calibration when it is determined that the level deviation from the reference level exceeds the predetermined threshold value as taught by Mannerfelt in order to provide for a reduced risk for accidents and reduced costs for repair work by notifying the user that the absorbers needs to be replaced.
Nell in view of Mannerfelt do not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to determining, using the calibrated inertial measurement sensor system, an alignment of the vehicle relative to a driving surface plane. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determining, using the calibrated inertial measurement sensor system, an alignment of the vehicle relative to a driving surface plane. For example, Navin teaches to determining, using the calibrated inertial measurement sensor system, an alignment of the vehicle relative to a driving surface plane. Navin further teaches that performing such step provides accurate alignment of the vehicle (see at least Navin Figs 1-5 and paragraphs 8, 24, 53 and 84). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nell in view of Mannerfelt to perform the step of determining, using the calibrated inertial measurement sensor system, an alignment of the vehicle relative to a driving surface plane as taught by Navin in order to provide accurate alignment of the vehicle. Nell in view of Mannerfelt and further in view of Navin do not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to controlling a range of a headlight of the vehicle depending on the determined alignment. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to controlling a range of a headlight of the vehicle depending on the determined alignment. For example, Child teaches to controlling a range of a headlight of the vehicle depending on the determined alignment. Child further teaches that performing such step provides accurately pointing the headlight in the correct direction (see at least Child Figs.1-8 and paragraphs 28, 54). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nell in view of Mannerfelt and further in view of Navin to perform the step of controlling a range of a headlight of the vehicle depending on the determined alignment as taught by Child in order to accurately pointing the headlight in the correct direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5-6, filed on 3/11/2023, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nell in view of Mannerfelt and Nell in view of Mannerfelt and further in view of Navin and further in view of Child.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub No. US 2021/0140795 A1 to Jozsa (Jozsa) teaches calibrating the inertial measurement unit for a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 April 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights