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 Office Action is in response to the application filed on May 28, 2025. Claims 9 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on May 28, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for FR2405838 dated June 4, 2024.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome potential future rejections made using references falling between the filing date and the foreign priority date, because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. No action by Applicant is requested at this time.
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.
Claims 4-6 along with the dependent claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites wherein said calculating takes into account only the estimated speed of the vehicle. It is unclear what is meant by the vehicle estimated speed being the only thing taken into account during the calculating step when, absent additional elements, no calculation may be performed. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean that the vehicle speed(s) utilized are not the raw data.
Claim 6 recites both a Doppler radar system and an inertial navigation system. It is unclear whether these are the same or different systems than those recited in independent claim 1 from which claim 6 depends. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting them to be the same.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a method, and dependent claim 9 is directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, each of claims 1 and 9 along with the corresponding dependent claims 1-5 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mathematical concepts. The language of independent claim 1 is used for illustration:
A method for simultaneous localization and mapping, comprising:
for each of a plurality of successive time (iteratively performing the steps below fails to take the method out of an abstract idea as it is merely repeating the mathematical concepts):
acquiring a set of points at a current time, the set of points being delivered by a Doppler radar system, a point of the set of points being characterized by a position and a radial speed in a moving reference frame associated with the vehicle (this limitation is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as discussed further below);
acquiring an attitude of the vehicle at the current time, the attitude being supplied by an inertial navigation system (this limitation is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as discussed further below);
orientating the points of the set of points relative to a fixed land reference frame, taking into account the attitude (virtual orientation of relative points is considered a mathematical processes);
processing the radial speed of points of the set of points in order to calculate an estimated speed of the vehicle at the current time (calculating an estimated speed of the vehicle and processing radial speed points are both considered mathematical processes); and
calculating a position of the vehicle at the current time, taking into account the estimated speed of the vehicle (calculating a vehicle position taking into account vehicle speed is a mathematical concept); and
executing a simultaneous localization and mapping algorithm taking into account the position of the vehicle over the plurality of successive times (this step is considered an apply-it step which utilizes generic computer processing to execute a known algorithm).
As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 such as 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”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the mathematical concepts judicial exception is/are not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claim 1 recites the additional elements of acquiring a set of points at a current time…, acquiring an attitude of the vehicle at the current time…, and executing a simultaneous localization and mapping algorithm…. These limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, add insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically,
a. acquiring a set of points at a current time… found in independent claim 1. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as it requires mere data gathering/receiving, as explained further below.
b. acquiring an attitude of the vehicle at the current time… found in independent claim 1. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as it requires mere data gathering/receiving, as explained further below.
c. executing a simultaneous localization and mapping algorithm… found in independent claim 1. This limitation is considered an apply-it step which utilizes generic computer processing to execute a known algorithm.
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, as discussed above, the limitations of acquiring a set of points at a current time… and acquiring an attitude of the vehicle at the current time… as recited above, are considered insignificant extra solution activities.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitations of acquiring a set of points at a current time… and acquiring an attitude of the vehicle at the current time… are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because they have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
a. acquiring a set of points at a current time… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art."); and
b. acquiring an attitude of the vehicle at the current time… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claim 1 is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 9 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-5 and 9, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-5 and 9 are patent ineligible. Therefore, claims 1-5 and 9 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner encourages Applicant to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0324543 (hereinafter, “Kulkarni”).
Regarding claim 1, Kulkarni discloses A method for simultaneous localization and mapping (see at least [0027], [0041], [0076]-[0077], and the publication generally), comprising:
for each of a plurality of successive times (see at least [0040] and [0049]; the process may be updated either at each periodic window of time or when triggered by an event):
acquiring a set of points at a current time, the set of points being delivered by a Doppler radar system, a point of the set of points being characterized by a position and a radial speed in a moving reference frame associated with the vehicle (see at least [0036], [0040], [0052], [0057], [0066], and [0090]; the radar system may utilize Doppler filtering/Doppler velocity measured via the radar for a set of radar points associated with a moving reference frame of a vehicle);
acquiring an attitude of the vehicle at the current time, the attitude being supplied by an inertial navigation system (see at least [0035]; the six degree of freedom pose of the vehicle (i.e., attitude of the vehicle) may be provided by the inertial navigation system of the vehicle);
orientating the points of the set of points relative to a fixed land reference frame, taking into account the attitude (see at least [0040], [0052], and [0076]-[0077]; static objects (i.e., fixed land reference frame) may be utilized for localizing the vehicle based at least on the relative pose of the vehicle (i.e., attitude of the vehicle) and the map matching);
processing the radial speed of points of the set of points in order to calculate an estimated speed of the vehicle at the current time (see at least [0052] and [0066]; an estimated relative vehicle speed is determined for a given time); and
calculating a position of the vehicle at the current time, taking into account the estimated speed of the vehicle (see at least [0030] and [0037]-[0038]; the relative vehicle speed may be taken into account when determining the position of the vehicle as the vehicle navigates along a route); and
executing a simultaneous localization and mapping algorithm taking into account the position of the vehicle over the plurality of successive times (see at least [0027], [0035], [0041], [0076]-[0077], and the publication generally; SLAM may be performed taking into account the vehicle pose and position, updated over time, for navigation purposes, for example).
Regarding claim 2, Kulkarni discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Kulkarni discloses further comprising filtering the set of points to retain only the points corresponding to objects that are fixed relative to the land reference frame (see at least [0040]; dynamic objects may be filtered out).
Regarding claim 3, Kulkarni discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Kulkarni discloses wherein said filtering takes into account a raw speed at the current time of the vehicle delivered by the inertial navigation system (see at least [0035]; raw inertial measurements may be utilized).
Regarding claim 4, Kulkarni discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Kulkarni discloses wherein said calculating takes into account only the estimated speed of the vehicle (see at least [0030] and [0037]-[0038]; the relative vehicle speed may be taken into account when determining the position of the vehicle as the vehicle navigates along a route).
Regarding claim 5, Kulkarni discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Kulkarni discloses comprising correcting the raw speed by taking into account the estimated speed so as to obtain a corrected speed at the current time of the vehicle, and wherein said calculating is carried out on the basis of the corrected speed (see at least [0049]-[0050]; updated trajectory information may be calculated periodically based on the current vehicle time including speeds, directions, poses, etc.).
Regarding claim 6, Kulkarni discloses A system (see at least [0031]) comprising:
a Doppler radar system (see at least [0065]);
an inertial navigation system (see at least [0035]); and
a calculator suitably programmed (see at least [0129]), wherein the system implements the method according to claim 1 (see at least the citations of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Kulkarni discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Kulkarni discloses wherein said Doppler radar system is of a frequency-modulated continuous wave radar type (see at least [0036] and [0065]).
Regarding claim 8, Kulkarni discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Kulkarni discloses wherein said calculator implements a simultaneous localization and mapping algorithm of the iterative closest point type (see at least [0076]).
Regarding claim 9, Kulkarni discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Kulkarni discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon, the instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute the method according to claim 1 (see at least [0122] and [0125]).
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0126333 which pertains to matching vehicle radar data to hyper-local submaps utilizing Doppler radial velocity measurements of moving objects; and
U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0370920 which pertains to SLAM methods using feedback from radar and motion sensors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights