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 § 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed subject matter is non-statutory.
Claim 8 is directed to “a computer program for carrying out a method according to claim 1.”. As claimed, the “computer program” constitutes software per se, i.e., a set of instructions or information, and is not recited as being stored on a computer-readable medium or otherwise embodied in a statutory category such as process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Software instructions, or code by itself, without a tangible medium or execution context, is not patent-eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. Merely reciting that the computer program carries out the method of claim 1 does not render the claim statutory, as the claim remains directed to the computer program in the abstract.
Accordingly, claim 8 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Independent claim 9 recites a “machine-readable storage medium,” which is not comprehensively defined by the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a machine-readable storage medium covers forms of transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of machine-readable storage medium, particularly when the specification is silent. Transitory propagating signals are non-statutory subject matter. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1495, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). See also Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). Examiner suggests adding the word “non-transitory.”
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an [AltContent: connector]abstract idea without significantly more.
[AltContent: connector]101 Analysis – Step 1
[AltContent: connector]Claim 1 is directed to a method for determining an integrity range of a parameter estimation for localization of a vehicle on the basis of obtained sensor data for localization according to surroundings features. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently amended) A method for determining an integrity range of a parameter estimation for localization of a vehicle on the basis of obtained sensor data for localization according to surroundings features, wherein the integrity range describes the range in which an estimated parameter is located with a minimum probability, the method comprising
a) determining a base integrity information item,
b) determining at least one additional integrity information item, and
c) determining the integrity range using the base integrity information item and the at least one first additional integrity information item.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining…determining…determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at sensor readings and noting a base value, determine additional information mentally or with a calculator, and mathematically combining these values to produce the range. Also, these limitations constitute mathematical concept. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
1. (Currently amended) A method for determining an integrity range of a parameter estimation for localization of a vehicle on the basis of obtained sensor data for localization according to surroundings features, wherein the integrity range describes the range in which an estimated parameter is located with a minimum probability, the method comprising
a) determining a base integrity information item,
b) determining at least one additional integrity information item, and
c) determining the integrity range using the base integrity information item and the at least one first additional integrity information item.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the claim, including “obtaining sensor data for localization” and “vehicle”, are conventional and recited as generic, and do not meaningfully limit the claim to a particular practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claimed “vehicle” and “sensor data” are recited at high level of generality and are merely generic. Thus, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “obtained sensor data for localization according to surroundings features” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the field of vehicle localization and sensor-based navigation (Also see applicant’s specification paragraphs 2-6, under “Prior Art”)
Each of claims 2-7 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 with additional, conventional features, such as:
Claim 2: localization relative to known features in the surroundings
Claim 3: obtaining sensor data from a camera, video, radar, or lidar
Claim 4: performing parameter estimation with a filter
Claim 5: base integrity determined from a mathematical model or stochastic measure
Claim 6: additional integrity information describing the number or distribution of features
Claim 7: determining integrity range as a protection level
None of these limitations add a technological improvement or inventive concept. Each limitation either describes routine operations or generic mathematical/statistical procedures applied to conventional sensors or known features. These limitations are additional mathematical concepts and also can be performed via human mind. Claims 2-7, therefore, are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 merely recites implementing the abstract idea of claim 1 on generic vehicle control unit. Using a generic control unit does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][1] as being anticipated by Roberfroid et al. (US 20160084655 A1)
In regards to claim 1, Roberfroid teaches, A method for determining an integrity range of a parameter estimation for localization of a vehicle on the basis of obtained sensor data for localization according to surroundings features, wherein the integrity range describes the range in which an estimated parameter is located with a minimum probability, the method comprising: (Phrases like “for determining an integrity range…”, “for localization of a vehicle…” or “wherein the integrity range describes…” are considered as intended use and context of the claimed method, and does not recite structural or functional limitations that are essential to the practice of the claimed steps a-c. For purposes of determining anticipation under 35 USC 102, the preamble is not limiting, and the prior art need not explicitly disclose localization of a vehicle or the specific definition of the integrity range, so long as it discloses the claimed steps a-c listed below.)
a) determining a base integrity information item, (See paragraphs 39-43, first integrity information may be determined from a first GNSS and IMU sensor combination. Each sensor combination is used to determine a failure probability)
b) determining at least one additional integrity information item, and (See paragraphs 39-43, second integrity information may be determined from a second GNSS and IMU sensor combination)
c) determining the integrity range using the base integrity information item and the at least one first additional integrity information item. (See paragraphs 39-43, 45, and fig. 2, sensor combination data is used to create protection circles in which indicate failure probability. Circles may be consolidated to determine a greater circle that can be used to determine failure probability for the group of data. Figure 2 specifies a failure probability of 10^-9. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the failure probability to represent the probability that the true parameter lies outside the protection radius. Accordingly, the protection radius defines a range within which the estimated parameter lies with a minimum probability equal to one minus the failure probability, thereby meeting the claimed “minimum probability” in the preamble)
In regards to claim 4, Roberfroid teaches the method according to claim 1. wherein at least one result of the parameter estimation and the base integrity information item are determined by a filter. (See paragraph 34, merging-consolidation device 4 (a computing platform) which includes six processing modules 5a to 5f of the type with Kalman filters on the one hand and a consolidation module 6 on the other hand.)
In regards to claim 5, Roberfroid teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the base integrity information item is determined on the basis of a mathematical model and/or describes a stochastic measure. (See paragraphs 34 and 48, a merging-consolidation device 4 (a computing platform) which includes six processing modules 5a to 5f of the type with Kalman filters on the one hand and a consolidation module 6 on the other hand. Kalman filter is well-established mathematical model for optimal state estimation. Also paragraph 48 indicates stochastic measure)
In regards to claim 7, Roberfroid teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the integrity range is determined as a protection level. (See paragraph 8, 47-48, The radius R of this circle C is then used as a protection radius, for the protection probability… The protection radius corresponds to a maximum error for a given error occurrence probability.)
Claims 8-10 are similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberfroid et al. (US 20160084655 A1) in view of NPL: GNSS-Imaging Data Fusion for Integrity Enhancement in Autonomous Vehicles, cited in IDS, hereinafter “Baldoni”.
In regards to claim 2, Roberfroid teaches the method according to claim 1.
Roberfroid does not specifically teach, wherein the localization is performed according to surroundings features as positioning relative to known features in the surroundings of the vehicle.
Baldoni further teaches, wherein the localization is performed according to surroundings features as positioning relative to known features in the surroundings of the vehicle. (See section IV in page 4693, “Since all the measures are referred to the centerline (both in terms of shift and direction), a road digital map (RDM) containing all the georeferencing information concerning the centerline is assumed to be available.” The vehicle determines its position by reference to a road digital map containing known features (the georeferenced centerline) in the surroundings of the vehicle. The lane markings detected by the camera are the surroundings features, and the RDM represents the known features against which positioning is performed)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the integrity range determination framework of Roberfroid to further comprise surroundings feature based localization system taught by Baldoni because doing so would yield the predictable benefit of providing a probabilistically bounded integrity range for a localization system that augments GNSS measurements with camera based surroundings feature observations, thereby improving the integrity and reliability of vehicle navigation beyond what GNSS-only integrity monitoring can achieve.
In regards to claim 3, Roberfroid teaches the method according to claim 1.
Roberfroid does not specifically teach, wherein the sensor data is obtained from a camera sensor, video sensor, radar sensor, or lidar sensor.
Baldoni further discloses wherein the sensor data is obtained from a camera sensor, video sensor, radar sensor, or lidar sensor. (See page 4690, “We exploit the additional information provided by an on-board camera for improving the integrity of the GNSS-based position estimate on both the lateral and longitudinal directions.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the integrity range determination framework of Roberfroid to further comprise surroundings feature based localization system taught by Baldoni because doing so would yield the predictable benefit of providing a probabilistically bounded integrity range for a localization system that augments GNSS measurements with camera based surroundings feature observations, thereby improving the integrity and reliability of vehicle navigation beyond what GNSS-only integrity monitoring can achieve.
In regards to claim 6, Roberfroid teaches the method according to claim 1.
Roberfroid does not specifically teach, wherein the at least one additional integrity information item describes information about the number and/or distribution of the detectable features.
Baldoni discloses wherein the at least one additional integrity information item describes information about the number and/or distribution of the detectable features. (See page 4695, Section VI, “by adding to the GNSS measures um, the lateral offset provided by the imaging system, and vm, the height of the camera above ground, the dimension of the observation matrix, and consequently of the parity space, is
increased by two. The effective gain, in terms of fault detection, depends on the mutual geometry among satellites, road, and receiver.” The spatial arrangement of satellites and road features relative to the receiver directly governs the integrity computation.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the integrity range determination framework of Roberfroid to further comprise surroundings feature based localization system taught by Baldoni because doing so would yield the predictable benefit of providing a probabilistically bounded integrity range for a localization system that augments GNSS measurements with camera based surroundings feature observations, thereby improving the integrity and reliability of vehicle navigation beyond what GNSS-only integrity monitoring can achieve.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668