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 Claims
This action is reply to the Application Number 18/877,062 filed on 12/19/2024. This is also a first action on the merits.
Claims 1 – 13 and 15 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim 14 has been cancelled.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action by Applicant is requested at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification on Page 7, line 37 states: “the location box 12”, which is incorrect as the location box is specified by reference character 16. The object of interest is specified by reference character 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a processing unit for…” in claims 3 and 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a cost function comparing the evaluated positions to the estimated positions corrected by means of the or each resetting parameter” in claim 1
“a cost function comparing the positions evaluated for N determination instants with the positions estimated for said N determination instants corrected by means of the resetting parameter” in claim 9
“calculating, by the dead reckoning navigation system, by means of the attitude resetting parameter and the position resetting parameter, a calculated position of the dead reckoning navigation system in the predetermined coordinate system” in claim 11
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a storage means readable by computer equipment on which a computer program product comprising code instructions for executing the attitude resetting method according to claim 1 is recorded” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The claim is indefinite whether the instructions for executing the attitude resetting method are being recorded onto the storage or if the storage is merely holding the computer program product comprising code instructions? Therefore this claim will be interpreted as the instructions for executing the attitude resetting method being recorded on the storage means.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 15 is directed toward a computer readable medium. The claim does not recite, and the specification does not define, that the computer readable medium is limited to non-transitory embodiments. A claim encompassing both transitory and non-transitory embodiments, such as applicant’s claimed computer readable medium, does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A transitory, propagating signal like Nuitjen’s is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ … Thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.”).
The claim may be amended to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would not raise the issue of new matter because the specification supports a claim drawn to at least one non-transitory embodiment.
Therefore, claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 USC §101 as being directed toward ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 6, 9 – 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel et al. (US 20240310173 A1) further in view of Zavoli et al. (US 20090228204 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Michel teaches an attitude resetting method for resetting an attitude provided by a dead reckoning navigation system, the attitude resetting method comprising the following steps: (Michel: Paragraph 0001: “The present invention generally relates to the field of navigation systems, in particular of the dead reckoning type, in which location recalibration is implemented. More particularly, it relates to a device and a method for estimating the location of a vehicle guided along a curvilinear guide.”)
- estimating, by the dead reckoning navigation system, for each of a plurality of determination instants comprised in a movement interval during which the dead reckoning navigation system moves along a movement trajectory, an estimated position of the dead reckoning navigation system in an arbitrary fixed coordinate system at said determination instant, (Michel: Paragraphs 0028 - 0030: “For that purpose, it is first proposed a device for estimating the location of a vehicle guided along a guide, the device including: an attitude sensor for the guided vehicle, the attitude sensor providing, while the vehicle moves, measurement values, in a local geographical reference system, for one or several attitude components of the guided vehicle, the attitude components including geographical heading, roll and yaw, and defining the orientation of a reference system attached to the vehicle with respect to the local geographical reference system,”; Paragraph 0038: “the local geographical reference system is defined as being the reference system with the origin point at the current position of the dead-reckoning navigation system and whose axes are along the North, West, Top or North, East, Bottom directions,”)
- obtaining, for each determination instant, an evaluated position of the dead reckoning navigation system at said determination instant in a predetermined fixed coordinate system, said evaluated position having been evaluated by a relative positioning system, and (Michel: Paragraphs 0031 – 0033: “the virtual attitude beacon data of a given beacon including at least orientation and location information about said beacon, said information being one or several values of one or several of the attitude components of said beacon and at least one beacon attribute value, including at least one position attribute value of said beacon, the attitude components being a maximum of three, including a geographic heading, the position attribute value(s) being used to locate the beacon, a processor configured to perform an activity of virtual attitude beacon reader, the virtual attitude beacon reader comparing the stored virtual attitude beacon data and the vehicle attitude measurement values to detect a crossing of a virtual attitude beacon, the guided vehicle location being provided by the position attribute value(s) of the beacon detected in the virtual attitude beacon reader.”; Paragraph 0042 – 0044: “in the virtual attitude beacon reader, the processor is configured to detect crossed virtual attitude beacons, in the virtual attitude beacon reader, the processor is moreover configured to eliminate incorrectly detected crossed virtual attitude beacons, the processor is configured to detect virtual attitude beacons in the virtual attitude beacon reader by comparing the three attitude components of the stored virtual attitude beacon data and the vehicle attitude measurement values,”).
In sum, Michel teaches an attitude resetting method for resetting an attitude provided by a dead reckoning navigation system, the attitude resetting method comprising the following steps: estimating, by the dead reckoning navigation system, for each of a plurality of determination instants comprised in a movement interval during which the dead reckoning navigation system moves along a movement trajectory, an estimated position of the dead reckoning navigation system in an arbitrary fixed coordinate system at said determination instant, obtaining, for each determination instant, an evaluated position of the dead reckoning navigation system at said determination instant in a predetermined fixed coordinate system, said evaluated position having been evaluated by a relative positioning system. Michel however does not teach deducing at least one attitude resetting parameter by minimizing a cost function comparing the evaluated positions to the estimated positions corrected by means of the or each resetting parameter.
Zavoli teaches deducing at least one attitude resetting parameter by minimizing a cost function
comparing the evaluated positions to the estimated positions corrected by means of the or each resetting parameter (Zavoli: Paragraph 0084: “One of skill in the art can construct additional ways to use the above mentioned characteristics to match the sensor data to the map data.”; Paragraph 0088: “Use the computed distance and angles to the sensor-measured object's center, plus the position and orientation information of the sensor with respect to the vehicle platform plus the estimated position of the vehicle (in absolute or relative coordinates) and the combined estimated accuracy of the vehicle's position and sensor position accuracy (CEP) to locate where the object is computed to be within the spatial coordinate system used by the map database.”; Paragraph 0097: “Sum the weighted scores and normalize and select all weighted scores that pass an acceptance threshold. That is:
PNG
media_image1.png
54
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”; Paragraphs 0098 – 0102: “If there are no objects that pass, then reject object map matching for the current set of measurements. If there is one, then accept this as the sensor-matched object. Pass its coordinates, characteristics and attribution along to the application requesting such information for example to update/refine the vehicle's position and orientation. If there are more than one, then rank them according to their weighted score. If the largest weighted score is closer in match distance than the second largest weighted score, by more than a threshold, select the closest as the sensor-matched object, else reject object map matching for the current set of measurements. The above-described algorithm will provide exacting tests that should make matching-errors rare. In accordance with an embodiment, objects can be stored in the map database at a density such that many match tests could be rejected and the match frequency will still be sufficient to keep an accurate location and orientation in relative coordinate space”; Claim 1: “querying a map or image database by vehicle position or estimated sensed object location, said database allowing information to be retrieved for one or more of a plurality of objects, to extract at least one object depicted in said database for that position; and comparing the sensed object with the extracted object using a comparison logic, and, if such comparison is successful to a predetermined degree, effecting one or more of an adjustment of the GPS or otherwise-determined position or orientation of the vehicle”,
Supplemental Note: the method is used to compare sensor data, including orientation data, and comparing it with a map database by using an algorithm comprising of weighted scores. This is equivalent to a cost function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Michel with the teachings of Zavoli with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Michel and Zavoli teach dead-reckoning systems to be used to estimate a position and orientation of an object to compare it to other references for positional and orientation accuracy. Michel also teaches the ability of detecting errors between the vehicle heading measurement values and the virtual attitude beacons. Zavoli differs as it teaches the ability of adding weights to the location of the detected object features with the location of the objects located in the map database, in which a normalized weighted score is used to determine the position and orientation of the host vehicle. The ability of determining a normalized weighted score as taught by Zavoli would be obvious to try to combine with the vehicle system of Michel by one of ordinary skill in the art. Using this method, the system of Michel will be able to add weights to the various orientation and positional parameters, enabling accuracy determination of the vehicle heading measurement values with the virtual attitude beacons. This weighted system allows for the processor to detect what orientation and positional parameters have the highest rank (the largest weight score), thus the score which is matched most closely between the two sources. This further aids in determining the position and orientation of the vehicle as taught by Micheal.
Regarding claim 3, Michel, as modified, teaches wherein the dead reckoning navigation system includes a motion sensor for measuring a measured motion of the dead reckoning navigation system and (Michel: Paragraphs 0028 – 0030: “it is first proposed a device for estimating the location of a vehicle guided along a guide, the device including: an attitude sensor for the guided vehicle, the attitude sensor providing, while the vehicle moves, measurement values, in a local geographical reference system, for one or several attitude components of the guided vehicle, the attitude components including geographical heading, roll and yaw, and defining the orientation of a reference system attached to the vehicle with respect to the local geographical reference system,”)
a processing unit for deducing from the measured motion an attitude and a position of the dead reckoning navigation system (Michel: Paragraphs 0028 - 0030: “For that purpose, it is first proposed a device for estimating the location of a vehicle guided along a guide, the device including: an attitude sensor for the guided vehicle, the attitude sensor providing, while the vehicle moves, measurement values, in a local geographical reference system, for one or several attitude components of the guided vehicle, the attitude components including geographical heading, roll and yaw, and defining the orientation of a reference system attached to the vehicle with respect to the local geographical reference system,”; Paragraph 0036: “the local geographical reference system is defined as being the reference system with the origin point at the current position of the dead-reckoning navigation system and whose axes are along the North, West, Top or North, East, Bottom directions,”).
Regarding claim 4, Michel, as modified, teaches wherein the relative positioning system is selected from: a multi-angulation system, a multi-lateration system, a map matching system and a visual positioning system (Michel: Paragraph 0042 – 0044: “in the virtual attitude beacon reader, the processor is configured to detect crossed virtual attitude beacons, in the virtual attitude beacon reader, the processor is moreover configured to eliminate incorrectly detected crossed virtual attitude beacons, the processor is configured to detect virtual attitude beacons in the virtual attitude beacon reader by comparing the three attitude components of the stored virtual attitude beacon data and the vehicle attitude measurement values,”; Paragraph 0028: “the attitude components including geographical heading, roll and yaw, and defining the orientation of a reference system attached to the vehicle with respect to the local geographical reference system”).
Regarding claim 5, Michel, as modified, teaches wherein the arbitrary fixed coordinate system and the predetermined fixed coordinate system share a common axis, an attitude resetting parameter being constituted by a parameter, preferably an angle, of modification of orientation by rotation about said common axis (Michel: Paragraph 0057: “in the case where the dead-reckoning navigation system implements an inertial unit, the virtual attitude beacon location attribute is advantageously a geodesic position to allow the system recalibration, [0058] in the case where the dead-reckoning navigation system implements a displacement sensor, the virtual attitude beacon location attribute is advantageously a curvilinear distance to a reference point to allow the system recalibration,”).
Regarding claim 6, Michel, as modified, teaches comprising a rotation and, preferably, a translation (Michel: Paragraphs 0028 – 0030: “it is first proposed a device for estimating the location of a vehicle guided along a guide, the device including: an attitude sensor for the guided vehicle, the attitude sensor providing, while the vehicle moves, measurement values, in a local geographical reference system, for one or several attitude components of the guided vehicle, the attitude components including geographical heading, roll and yaw, and defining the orientation of a reference system attached to the vehicle with respect to the local geographical reference system,”).
In sum, Michel teaches comprising a rotation and, preferably, a translation. Michel however does not teach wherein the cost function is representative of an average geometric deviation between the evaluated positions and the estimated positions after application to the evaluated or estimated positions of a geometric transformation.
Zavoli teaches wherein the cost function is representative of an average geometric deviation between the evaluated positions and the estimated positions after application to the evaluated or estimated positions of a geometric transformation (Zavoli: Paragraphs 0087 – 0088: “From the aggregated sensor measurements, compute a center of the object (using a centroid calculation or other estimation technique). Use the computed distance and angles to the sensor-measured object's center, plus the position and orientation information of the sensor with respect to the vehicle platform plus the estimated position of the vehicle (in absolute or relative coordinates) and the combined estimated accuracy of the vehicle's position and sensor position accuracy (CEP) to locate where the object is computed to be within the spatial coordinate system used by the map database.”: Paragraph 0090: “For each retrieved map object (i) compute the distance measured, Di, from the estimated position of the sensed object to the center of that retrieved object and store each distance along with the object ID.”; Paragraphs 0098 – 0099: “If there are no objects that pass, then reject object map matching for the current set of measurements. If there is one, then accept this as the sensor-matched object. Pass its coordinates, characteristics and attribution along to the application requesting such information for example to update/refine the vehicle's position and orientation.”,
Supplemental Note: the distances of the evaluated position from the sensor measured object’s center with the estimated position of the object stored in the map database is used to determine the vehicle position and orientation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Michel with the teachings of Zavoli with a reasonable expectation of success. As stated for claim 1, both Michel and Zavoli teach dead-reckoning systems to be used to estimate a position and orientation of an object to compare it to other references for positional and orientation accuracy. Michel also teaches the ability of detecting errors between the vehicle heading measurement values and the virtual attitude beacons. Zavoli differs as it teaches the ability of adding weights to the location of the detected object features with the location of the objects located in the map database, in which a normalized weighted score is used to determine the position and orientation of the host vehicle. Zavoli teaches this method by determining the distance between the location of the object measured by the sensor and the object located in a spatial coordinate system of a map database. The ability of determining a normalized weighted score based on at least the positional delta between the two sources as taught by Zavoli, would be obvious to try to combine with the vehicle system of Michel by one of ordinary skill in the art. Using this method, the system of Michel will be able to add weights to the various orientation and positional parameters, enabling accuracy determination of the vehicle heading measurement values with the virtual attitude beacons. This weighted system allows for the processor to detect what orientation and positional parameters have the highest rank (the largest weight score), thus the score which is matched most closely between the two sources. This further aids in determining the position and orientation of the vehicle as taught by Michel.
Regarding claim 11, Michel, as modified, teaches a method for locating an object in a predefined space,(Michel: Paragraphs 0124 – 0125: “wherein the processor configured to perform a virtual attitude beacon reader activity compares the stored virtual attitude beacon data and the vehicle attitude measurement values to detect a crossing of a virtual attitude beacon, and wherein the guided vehicle location is provided by the position attribute value(s) of the beacon detected in the virtual attitude beacon reader.”)
the object carrying a dead reckoning navigation system , the method comprising the following steps: (Michel: Paragraph 0001: “The present invention generally relates to the field of navigation systems, in particular of the dead reckoning type, in which location recalibration is implemented. More particularly, it relates to a device and a method for estimating the location of a vehicle guided along a curvilinear guide.”; Paragraphs 0028 – 0030: “For that purpose, it is first proposed a device for estimating the location of a vehicle guided along a guide, the device including: an attitude sensor for the guided vehicle, the attitude sensor providing, while the vehicle moves, measurement values, in a local geographical reference system, for one or several attitude components of the guided vehicle, the attitude components including geographical heading, roll and yaw, and defining the orientation of a reference system attached to the vehicle with respect to the local geographical reference system,”)
- starting the dead reckoning navigation system,
- resetting an attitude of the dead reckoning navigation system using a relative positioning system comprising an infrastructure installed at a point of access to the predefined space (Michel: Paragraphs 0028 - 0030: “For that purpose, it is first proposed a device for estimating the location of a vehicle guided along a guide, the device including: an attitude sensor for the guided vehicle, the attitude sensor providing, while the vehicle moves, measurement values, in a local geographical reference system, for one or several attitude components of the guided vehicle,”; Paragraph 0038: “the local geographical reference system is defined as being the reference system with the origin point at the current position of the dead-reckoning navigation system and whose axes are along the North, West, Top or North, East, Bottom directions,”; Paragraphs 0124 – 0125: “wherein the processor configured to perform a virtual attitude beacon reader activity compares the stored virtual attitude beacon data and the vehicle attitude measurement values to detect a crossing of a virtual attitude beacon, and wherein the guided vehicle location is provided by the position attribute value(s) of the beacon detected in the virtual attitude beacon reader.”,
Supplemental Note: the location of the guided vehicle is from the estimated position from the first device and the measurements when crossing a virtual attitude beacon)
, so as to obtain an attitude resetting parameter, said attitude resetting implementing the attitude resetting method according to claim 1, (Michel: Paragraphs 0031 – 0033: “the virtual attitude beacon data of a given beacon including at least orientation and location information about said beacon, said information being one or several values of one or several of the attitude components of said beacon and at least one beacon attribute value, including at least one position attribute value of said beacon, the attitude components being a maximum of three, including a geographic heading, the position attribute value(s) being used to locate the beacon, a processor configured to perform an activity of virtual attitude beacon reader, the virtual attitude beacon reader comparing the stored virtual attitude beacon data and the vehicle attitude measurement values to detect a crossing of a virtual attitude beacon, the guided vehicle location being provided by the position attribute value(s) of the beacon detected in the virtual attitude beacon reader.”; Paragraph 0042 – 0044: “in the virtual attitude beacon reader, the processor is configured to detect crossed virtual attitude beacons, in the virtual attitude beacon reader, the processor is moreover configured to eliminate incorrectly detected crossed virtual attitude beacons, the processor is configured to detect virtual attitude beacons in the virtual attitude beacon reader by comparing the three attitude components of the stored virtual attitude beacon data and the vehicle attitude measurement values,”,
Supplemental Note: please the 35 U.S.C prior art rejection of claim 1)
- resetting a position of the dead reckoning navigation system using a relative positioning system comprising an infrastructure installed at said point of access to the predefined space, so as to obtain a position resetting parameter, and (Michel: Paragraph 0153: “The vehicle includes a dead-reckoning navigation system 501 that is arranged in or on the vehicle and that operates to estimate the vehicle position. There is no positioning or orientation constraints for the dead-reckoning navigation system 501 in or on the vehicle. Recalibration of the dead-reckoning navigation system 501 consists in comparing its position with the detected beacon location information”: Paragraph 0142: “In this case, with virtual attitude beacon attitude components specific to the curvilinear guide, the heading being the angle between the tangent to the guide in the horizontal plane and the North direction and the heading measured in the vehicle being the angle between the centre distance and the North direction, then these angles are not equal, but it is possible to correct this difference due to the guide curvature variation. For that purpose, the processor 602 is moreover configured to correct the vehicle heading measurement values produced by the guided vehicle attitude sensor 603 by taking into account the guided vehicle centre distance, the vehicle speed and the time variation of a rotation vector, the components of said rotation vector being the time derivative of the roll, yaw and heading measured by the guided vehicle attitude sensor 603. After correction, the processor 602 performs an activity to detect 711 virtual attitude beacons in the virtual attitude beacon reader 710 by comparing corrected heading measurement values with the heading values of the virtual attitude beacon data.”,
Supplemental Note: the centre distance is equivalent to the position resetting parameter as it compares the distances between the virtual beacon and the measurements of the vehicle attitude sensor)
calculating, by the dead reckoning navigation system, by means of the attitude resetting parameter and the position resetting parameter, a calculated position of the dead reckoning navigation system in the predetermined coordinate system (Michel: Paragraph 0160: “If a position attribute value of the virtual attitude beacon is the value of the guide distance separating the virtual attitude beacon from a reference point, then this value enables to recalibrate the vehicle location along the guide.”).
Regarding claim 12, Michel, as modified, teaches wherein the infrastructure is carried on board a vehicle itself equipped with a location and orientation system making it possible to calculate a position of the infrastructure (Michel: Paragraph 0153: “The vehicle includes a dead-reckoning navigation system 501 that is arranged in or on the vehicle and that operates to estimate the vehicle position. There is no positioning or orientation constraints for the dead-reckoning navigation system 501 in or on the vehicle. Recalibration of the dead-reckoning navigation system 501 consists in comparing its position with the detected beacon location information.”)
in the predetermined coordinate system (Michel Paragraph 0042 – 0044: “in the virtual attitude beacon reader, the processor is configured to detect crossed virtual attitude beacons, in the virtual attitude beacon reader, the processor is moreover configured to eliminate incorrectly detected crossed virtual attitude beacons, the processor is configured to detect virtual attitude beacons in the virtual attitude beacon reader by comparing the three attitude components of the stored virtual attitude beacon data and the vehicle attitude measurement values,”).
Regarding claim 13, Michel, as modified, teaches a dead reckoning navigation system including a motion sensor for measuring a motion of the dead reckoning navigation system and (Michel: Paragraphs 0028 – 0030: “it is first proposed a device for estimating the location of a vehicle guided along a guide, the device including: an attitude sensor for the guided vehicle, the attitude sensor providing, while the vehicle moves, measurement values, in a local geographical reference system, for one or several attitude components of the guided vehicle, the attitude components including geographical heading, roll and yaw, and defining the orientation of a reference system attached to the vehicle with respect to the local geographical reference system,”)
a processing unit for deducing from the measured motion an attitude and a position of the dead reckoning navigation system in a fixed coordinate system, (Michel: Paragraphs 0028: “For that purpose, it is first proposed a device for estimating the location of a vehicle guided along a guide, the device including: an attitude sensor for the guided vehicle, the attitude sensor providing, while the vehicle moves, measurement values, in a local geographical reference system, for one or several attitude components of the guided vehicle, the attitude components including geographical heading, roll and yaw, and defining the orientation of a reference system attached to the vehicle with respect to the local geographical reference system,”; Paragraph 0036: “the local geographical reference system is defined as being the reference system with the origin point at the current position of the dead-reckoning navigation system and whose axes are along the North, West, Top or North, East, Bottom directions,”)
the processing unit being configured to implement the attitude resetting method according to claim 1 to reset said attitude (Michel: Paragraph 0042 – 0044: “in the virtual attitude beacon reader, the processor is configured to detect crossed virtual attitude beacons, in the virtual attitude beacon reader, the processor is moreover configured to eliminate incorrectly detected crossed virtual attitude beacons, the processor is configured to detect virtual attitude beacons in the virtual attitude beacon reader by comparing the three attitude components of the stored virtual attitude beacon data and the vehicle attitude measurement values,”; Paragraphs 0032 – 0033: “a processor configured to perform an activity of virtual attitude beacon reader, the virtual attitude beacon reader comparing the stored virtual attitude beacon data and the vehicle attitude measurement values to detect a crossing of a virtual attitude beacon, [0033] the guided vehicle location being provided by the position attribute value(s) of the beacon detected in the virtual attitude beacon reader.”,
Supplemental Note: please the 35 U.S.C prior art rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Michel, as modified, teaches a storage means readable by computer equipment on which a computer program product comprising code instructions for executing the attitude resetting method according to claim 1 is recorded (Michel: Paragraph 0184: “The device 600 of the invention thus includes a processor 602. The processor 602 is functionally connected to the memory 604 and to the attitude sensor 603 for measuring the vehicle attitude. The processor 602 is thus configured/programmed to obtain periodically, from the attitude sensor 603, a measurement value of at least one virtual attitude component then to compare it to the virtual attitude beacon data of the memory 604 with the search for a crossing of virtual attitude beacon data value by the attitude measurement values. The device 600 includes a communication interface 601, an attitude sensor 603 and a memory 604 that are in communication with the processor 602.”; Paragraph 0193: “The processor 602 is a programmable computer device and that is programmed to execute the invention.”).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel et al. (US 20240310173 A1) and Zavoli et al. (US 20090228204 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vissiere et al. (US 10996059 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Michel, as modified, does not teach wherein the dead reckoning navigation system is worn by a pedestrian.
Vissiere teaches wherein the dead reckoning navigation system is worn by a pedestrian (Vissiere: Col. 5, lines 52 – 55: “This object 1 may be any moveable object of which knowledge of the position is desired, for example a wheeled vehicle, a drone, etc., but also a person or a part of the body of this person (his hands, his head, etc.).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Michel with the teachings of Vissiere with a reasonable expectation of success. Vissiere teaches a type of dead reckoning system that is able to be worn by a pedestrian to determine the position of a pedestrian or any wheeled vehicle. Since Michel also teaches a dead reckoning system which is able to further detect the heading and position, this system is also able to be applied to a pedestrian as taught by Vissiere. For this reason, one of ordinary skill in the art would find combining prior art elements (dead reckoning system) according to known methods (attaching the system to a vehicle or a person) to yield predictable results of finding the location of said object.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel et al. (US 20240310173 A1) and Zavoli et al. (US 20090228204 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Le Grand et al. (US 20190120656 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Michel, as modified, does not teach wherein the step of deducing the resetting parameter comprises calculating a candidate value for the resetting parameter, evaluating an accuracy value of said candidate value, comparing said accuracy value with a previous accuracy value associated with a previous resetting parameter, and determining the resetting parameter as a function of the result of the step of comparing the accuracy value with a previous accuracy value, the resetting parameter depending on the candidate value and on the previous resetting parameter.
Le Grand teaches wherein the step of deducing the resetting parameter comprises calculating a candidate value for the resetting parameter, evaluating an accuracy value of said candidate value, comparing said accuracy value with a previous accuracy value associated with a previous resetting parameter, and determining the resetting parameter as a function of the result of the step of comparing the accuracy value with a previous accuracy value, the resetting parameter depending on the candidate value and on the previous resetting parameter (Le Grand: Paragraph 0051: “Within examples, information indicating a previous position may be received from a server that calculates or determines the information due to communication with the computing device, or from sensors of the computing device including a GPS sensor. The previous position may also be derived or calculated from a number of data points such as GPS location determinations, or WiFi scans and associated WiFi mappings.”; Paragraph 0075: “a previous position of a user is labeled as “A”, and a position after a step is labeled as “C” (similar to FIG. 6). A computing device of the person may yield number data from which estimations of the position after the step can be inferred. Example estimations of positions after the step are shown as may be determined from dead reckoning (labeled as “B”), WiFi signal maps (labeled as “D”), and GPS (labeled as “E”). Each of the data may have an error associated with the estimation the dead reckoning errors may be decomposed into weighted forward, sideways, and orientation change error components based on average observed movement of the computing device. Using this method, the weighted dead reckoning error components, and the other data indicating other estimations of position, may be utilized as constraints for determination of an updated estimation of the current position of the computing device. In FIG. 7, each estimation at positions B, D, and E are shown to pull the estimation of position closer to the position at C. The current estimate of the device according to all information available is represented by position C.”; Paragraph 0054: “The estimation of the current position of the computing device can be determined based on a dead reckoning calculation.”,
Supplemental Note: the candidate value for the resetting parameter is a position obtained by one of the GPS or WiFi map. These are compared with the position identified by the dead reckoning system and this comparison along with the average observed movement identified the weights to apply to the various change errors. Lastly, the position of the user is determined by evaluating all of the data received. The previous resetting parameter is the previous position (A) of the user. Please see Figure A).
PNG
media_image2.png
646
813
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Le Grand: Fig. 7
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Michel with the teachings of Le Grand with a reasonable expectation of success. Le Grand teaches the ability of detecting a position of an object by evaluating positions detected by the dead reckoning system, WiFi scans and GPS. The estimated location from the dead-reckoning system has positional component errors (forward, sideways and orientation errors) associated with it to determine the accuracy of the location. This location is evaluated from the WiFi scans and the GPS along with the average observed movements to determine positional component errors which are used to further determine the actual position of the object. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this function of Le Grand to be obvious to try to combine with the system of Michel. Michel teaches a similar method of dead reckoning systems to be used to estimate a position and orientation of an object’s vehicle heading measurement values and compare it to other the virtual attitude beacon’s positional and orientation for accuracy. The cost function of applying weights to the various positional component errors allows for a more precise method of localization. For example, an object moving with the dead reckoning system of Michel is able to determine its position and orientation. Positional component error weights can be identified, as taught by Le Grand, in which the accuracy is determined for this location further based on the data from the virtual attitude beacons. Furthermore, based on the average observed movements as taught by Le Grand, the weights of the positional component errors can be refined so the accuracy of the position of the object is improved.
Regarding claim 8, Michel, as modified, does not teach wherein the accuracy value is a function of uncertainties on the estimated positions and the evaluated positions and/or of an average geometric deviation between the evaluated positions and the estimated positions after application of the candidate value of the resetting parameter.
Zavoli teaches wherein the accuracy value is a function of uncertainties on the estimated positions and the evaluated positions and/or of an average geometric deviation between the evaluated positions and the estimated positions after application of the candidate value of the resetting parameter (Zavoli: Paragraph 0079: “Or after a time of applying the co-pending invention or other forms of sensor improved position determination, it may have matched to several if not many objects or scenes of objects which have served to also define the vehicle's position/orientation in the appropriate relative coordinate space. This may have possibly also improved the vehicle's absolute coordinate estimate. In this case the result of the match may be a more accurate position and orientation estimate at least in relative coordinates and possibly absolute coordinates.”; Paragraph 0098 – 0100: “If there are no objects that pass, then reject object map matching for the current set of measurements. If there is one, then accept this as the sensor-matched object. Pass its coordinates, characteristics and attribution along to the application requesting such information for example to update/refine the vehicle's position and orientation. If there are more than one, then rank them according to their weighted score. If the largest weighted score is closer in match distance than the second largest weighted score, by more than a threshold, select the closest as the sensor-matched object, else reject object map matching for the current set of measurements.”,
Supplemental Note: the accuracy value is equivalent to the rank given of a sensor-matched object based on the map database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Michel with the teachings of Zavoli with a reasonable expectation of success. As stated in claim 1, both Michel and Zavoli teach dead-reckoning systems to be used to estimate a position and orientation of an object to compare it to other references for positional and orientation accuracy. Michel also teaches the ability of detecting errors between the vehicle heading measurement values and the virtual attitude beacons. Zavoli differs as it teaches the ability of adding weights to the location of the detected object features with the location of the objects located in the map database, in which a normalized weighted score is used to determine the position and orientation of the host vehicle. The positional parameter that matches the closest has the highest ranking. The ability of determining a normalized weighted score as taught by Zavoli would be obvious to try to combine with the vehicle system of Michel by one of ordinary skill in the art. Using this method, the system of Michel will be able to add weights to the various orientation and positional parameters, enabling accuracy determination of the vehicle heading measurement values with the virtual attitude beacons. This weighted system allows for the processor to detect what orientation and positional parameters have the highest rank (the largest weight score), thus the score which is matched most closely between the two sources. This further aids in determining the position and orientation of the vehicle as taught by Micheal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: There is no searched prior art which teaches the limitation of “c) calculating a second candidate value for the resetting parameter by minimizing a cost function comparing the positions evaluated for N-1 determination instants, corresponding to said N determination instants minus an oldest determination instant, with the estimated positions for said N-1 determination instants corrected by means of the or each resetting parameter, e) comparing the first and second accuracy values, and f) selecting the first candidate value when the first accuracy value reflects the best accuracy”. The function of minimizing a cost function based on positions evaluated for N-1 determination instants which deletes the oldest determination instant is not taught in any of the searched prior art documents. Due to no art teaching a N-1 determination, the ability of calculating a second candidate value is also allowable. The second candidate value is then used for comparison with the first accuracy value which is also allowable. The closest searched prior art is as follows:
Zavoli et al. (US 20090228204 A) – teaches the ability of comparing full six degrees of freedom for a vehicle scene with a database to verify an accurate match (Zavoli: Paragraph 0073), however it doesn’t go into comparing positions evaluated N-1 determination instants.
Nachstedt et al. (US 20230204364 A1) – teaches the ability of localization for a vehicle which does not include the first position of the vehicle, however the whole objective of the system is to find the first position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koenig et al. (US 20100100321 A1) – teaches the ability of using a back-up camera as a dead-reckoning sensor able to determine the heading of the vehicle with the aid of a satellite-based navigation system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIVAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/SHIVAM SHARMA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights