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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11-14-2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 29 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.
As per claim 29, the phrase “the vehicle” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcanague, et. al., U.S. Patent Number 10,809,388, published October 20, 2020.
As per claims 14 and 29, Carcanague discloses a control system comprising a control device of a vehicle, the control device programmed to:
receive at least one position signal of a global navigation satellite system by way of a navigation sensor of the vehicle (Carcanague, Fig. 1B);
determine an estimated vehicle position based on the at least one received position signal (Carcanague, Fig. 1B obs data);
determine an estimated relative velocity of the vehicle with respect to the global navigation satellite system at least based on multiple received position signals of the global navigation satellite system (Carcanague, Col. 17, lines 12-20);
receive correction values for the estimated vehicle position and the estimated relative velocity from a server based on a communication device of the vehicle (Carcanague, Fig. 1B, from 1500);
and determine a corrected vehicle position and a corrected relative velocity based on the received correction values, wherein at least one of a pseudo-range, a Doppler shift, and a measured vehicle velocity is taken into consideration by the control device (Carcanague, Fig. 1B, 1100).
Carcanague fails to explicitly disclose determining an estimated vehicle position before applying correction values. As a GPS signal is received, position is known and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to being with an estimated position in order to gain the benefit of having an approximate location of the vehicle while refining with the additional data.
As per claim 15, Carcanague further discloses the control system of claim 14, wherein the control device is further programmed to transmit the corrected vehicle position and the corrected relative velocity based on the communication device to the server (Carcanague, Col. 41, 29-39).
As per claim 16, Carcanague further discloses the control system of claim 15, wherein the correction values provided by the server are position-dependent and satellite-dependent, and the server continuously updates a map of the position-dependent and satellite-dependent correction values (Carcanague, Col. 26, lines 15-45).
As per claim 17, Carcanague further discloses the control system of claim 14, wherein the vehicle includes at least one velocity sensor, which is coupled with the control device, and wherein the control device is further programmed to transmit the corrected vehicle position and the corrected relative velocity to the server at least when the control device determines based on at least one measured value of the velocity sensor that the vehicle is stationary or moves at a constant overland velocity (Carcanague, Col. 41, lines 29-34).
Carcanague fails to expressly disclose transmitting the data when the vehicle is stationary or at a constant velocity. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to decide when to transmit, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Carcanague.
As per claim 18, Carcanague further discloses the control system of claim 17, wherein the control device is further programmed to determine the corrected vehicle position and the corrected relative velocity additionally at least based on a measured value of the velocity sensor (Carcanague, Col. 23, lines 30-45).
As per claim 19, Carcanague further discloses the control system of claim 17, wherein the control device is further programmed to determine the estimated relative velocity of the vehicle additionally at least based on a measured value of the velocity sensor (Carcanague, Col. 17, lines 13-30).
As per claim 20, Carcanague further discloses the control system of claim 14, wherein the control device is further programmed to receive topographic map information or a vehicle trajectory from the server or a trajectory planner, and determine the corrected vehicle position and the corrected relative velocity of the vehicle additionally at least based on the topographic map information or the vehicle trajectory (Carcanague, Col. 17, lines 42-47 where track angle is trajectory).
As per claim 21, Carcanague further discloses the control system of claim 20, wherein the control device is further programmed to determine at least one vehicle velocity vector based at least on the corrected vehicle position and the corrected relative velocity (Carcanague, Col. 17, lines 13-41).
As per claims 22 and 33, Carcanague further discloses the control system of claim 21, wherein the control device is further programmed to solve a single combined position-dependent and velocity-dependent optimization task to determine the corrected vehicle position and the corrected relative velocity (Carcanague, Col. 23 lines 30-50 corrections engine).
As per claim 23, Carcanague further discloses the control system of claim 22, wherein the correction values comprise at least time shifts between a vehicle system clock of the vehicle and a system clock of the global navigation satellite system (Carcanague, Col. 16, lines 45-60 clock drift).
As per claim 24, Carcanague further discloses the control system of claim 23, wherein the corrected vehicle position and the corrected relative velocity are used to control driving functionalities of the vehicle (Carcanague, Col. 2, lines 48-55).
As per claim 25, Carcanague further discloses the control system of claim 14, further comprising the navigation sensor and the communication device, wherein the control device is coupled at least with the navigation sensor and the communication device (Carcanague, Col. 2, lines 40-55).
As per claims 26 and 30, Carcanague further discloses the control system of claim 14, wherein the pseudo-range is taken into consideration by the control device when determining the corrected vehicle position and the corrected relative velocity (Carcanague, Col. 11, lines 9-15).
As per claims 27 and 31, Carcanague further discloses the control system of claim 14, wherein the Doppler shift is taken into consideration by the control device when determining the corrected vehicle position and the corrected relative velocity (Carcanague, Col. 17, lines 20-23).
As per claims 28 and 32, Carcanague further discloses the control system of claim 14, wherein the measured vehicle velocity is taken into consideration by the control device when determining the corrected vehicle position and the corrected relative velocity (Carcanague, Col. 17, lines 13-30).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights