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 claims submitted on August 06, 2025. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are currently pending, with Claims 1, 8, and 15 being amended.
Response to Amendments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, filed August 06, 2025, the Examiner maintains the correspond 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 06, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 have been considered, but are not persuasive. Stenneth teaches a method for determining hazard warnings, providing alerts, and navigation recommendations to the user (see at least Paragraphs [0028], [0030], [0042] of Stenneth). Breiholz teaches a radar system which fuses data from multiple sources into one display, where the system merges the different sources and provides an output based on overlap of the source data and based on the weather condition, severity, and location (see at least Col. 8 lines 1-6, lines 20-35; Col. 10 lines 17-29; Col. 11 lines 27-37 and lines 41-49; of Breiholz). Kiefer teaches a method for providing alerts to a driver, where different alerts are combined into one (see at least Paragraph [0038] of Kiefer). The combination of Stenneth, in view of Breiholz and Kiefer, teaches a system for receiving data from different sources, determining the degree of similarity between the data, merging the data, and providing it in a single alert/ display to the user. As such, the Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addresses above and/or below and are unpersuasive for essentially the same reasons. Therefore, the corresponding rejections are maintained.
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.
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 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0192356 A1, to Stenneth, et al (hereinafter referred to as Stenneth; previously of record), in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,535,158 B1, to Breiholz, et al (hereinafter referred to as Breiholz; newly of record), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0342337 A1, to Kiefer, et al (hereinafter referred to as Kiefer; newly of record).
As per Claim 1, and similarly for Claims 8 and 15, Stenneth teaches the features of an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory including computer program code instructions (e.g. Paragraph [0036]; where the apparatus (20) may be associated with a processor (24), a memory device (26), and a user interface (28), and the processor may include circuitry for retrieving instructions from the memory), the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to at least:
receive a first indication of a first hazard warning (e.g. Paragraphs [0028], [0030], [0042]; where the system may provide local hazard warnings to a user or to an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle controls (i.e. first warning)),
wherein the first hazard warning comprises a first hazard condition and a first hazard polygon in which the first hazard condition is estimated to be present (e.g. Paragraphs [0030], [0063]; where the warning may indicate that the warning corresponds to a current or future location of the user; and the tiles in which rain (i.e. adverse weather) is present, the local hazard warning polygon spans the affected region),
wherein the first indication of the first hazard warning is based on a first source of data (e.g. Paragraphs [0045]; where the hazard warning information can be obtained from other sources, such as municipalities or respective geographic authorities (i.e. first source of data));
receive a second indication of a ‘…’ hazard warning (e.g. Paragraphs [0030], [0042]; where the system provides any location based hazards warnings associated with the current location of the device and the user (i.e. more than one, or second warning information); and where the warning may be generated based on crowd-sourced weather-related information (i.e. different sources)),
wherein the ‘…’ hazard warning comprises a second hazard condition and a second hazard polygon in which the second hazard condition is estimated to be present (e.g. Paragraphs [0058], [0060], [0069]; where the local hazard warning polygon may be compared against weather data from a third party to establish a weather condition for each tile to generate a quality score for the data (i.e. second or overlapping polygon)),
wherein the second indication of the second hazard warning is based on a second source of data (e.g. Paragraphs [0030], [0042]; where the system provides any location based hazards warnings associated with the current location of the device and the user (i.e. more than one, or second warning information); and where the warning may be generated based on crowd-sourced weather-related information (i.e. different sources)),
wherein the first hazard condition and the second hazard condition correspond to one or more of a plurality of adverse weather conditions (e.g. Paragraph [0069]; where the hazard warning condition polygon and tiles within the polygons indicate adverse weather conditions),
provide for at least one of navigational assistance or autonomous vehicle control based, at least in part, on the merged hazard polygon (e.g. Paragraph [0028]; where the local hazard warnings may be provided to the autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle controls to aid the autonomous controls in providing safe travel along a network).
Stenneth fails to disclose every feature of receive a second indication of a second hazard warning; generate, from the first hazard warning and the second hazard warning, a merged hazard polygon and a single unified hazard condition warning, wherein generation of the merged hazard polygon is in response to a predefined degree of similarity between the first hazard condition and the second hazard condition, wherein the predefined degree of similarity between the first hazard condition and the second hazard condition is based on a hazard type, a severity level, and a temporal proximity; and generate, from the first hazard warning and the second hazard warning, ‘…’a single unified hazard condition warning.
Breiholz, further teaches the features of receive a second indication of a second hazard warning. Breiholz teaches a weather radar system and method with fusion of multiple weather information sources, where the processor (408) may merge or cross qualify portions, or ranges, of radar returns or weather data of several different sources, including weather data from one or more remote sources (414), so that a composite or fused image may be presented to the pilot; where the system receives weather data for a weather condition from first and second weather data sources (i.e. first and second warnings), determines the second location of one or more weather cells, and updates the display of the weather cells with reference to the second position (i.e. second alert) (e.g. Col. 10 lines 17-29; Col. 11 lines 27-37 and lines 41-49; Figures 5, 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the method for estimating the accuracy of local hazard warnings in the system of Stenneth, with the feature of updating displays in the system of Breiholz, in order to accurately determine the quality of the weather reports from different sources (see at least Col. 2 lines 14-17 of Breiholz).
Breiholz further teaches the features of generate, from the first hazard warning and the second hazard warning, a merged hazard polygon, wherein generation of the merged hazard polygon is in response to a predefined degree of similarity between the first hazard condition and the second hazard condition. Breiholz teaches a weather radar system and method with fusion of multiple weather information sources, where the processor (408) may merge or cross qualify portions, or ranges, of radar returns or weather data of several different sources, including weather data from one or more remote sources (414), so that a composite or fused image may be presented to the pilot; and where the processor (408) may utilize weather data (417a) received from returns by the antenna (404) and/or weather data (417b) received from remote source (414) to provide individual, composite, fused, or overlay image indicative of a weather condition (i.e. a fused or single presentation of information); and where the image data derived from weather data (417a, 417b) may be spatially correlated by weather imaging module (418) to determine the confidence factor reflecting the degree to which the weather data received from two or more sources agree in their characterization of the weather condition (e.g. Col. 10 lines 17-29; Col. 11 lines 27-37 and lines 41-49; Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the method for estimating the accuracy of local hazard warnings in the system of Stenneth, with the feature of generating a merged polygon in the system of Breiholz, in order to accurately determine the quality of the weather reports from different sources (see at least Col. 2 lines 14-17 of Breiholz).
Breiholz further teaches the features of wherein the predefined degree of similarity between the first hazard condition and the second hazard condition is based on a hazard type, a severity level, and a temporal proximity. Breiholz teaches a weather radar system and method with fusion of multiple weather information sources, where the image data derived from weather data (417a, 417b) may be spatially correlated by weather imaging module (418) to determine the confidence factor reflecting the degree to which the weather data received from two or more sources agree in their characterization of the weather condition; and where the weather data that is provided from a plurality of sources may be indicative of one or more types of weather conditions (i.e. hazard type), and the current weather cell location information may be provided with azimuth, range, direction, and speed information (i.e. proximity), and based on current and prior volume scans to predict future locations, growth, and decay of each cell (i.e. severity), including prediction of hail or severe hail, and the weather data may include radar data containing location information, motion vector data, time of sensing information (i.e. proximity), and measures parameters for the weather conditions (e.g. Col. 7 lines 55-58; Col. 8 lines 1-6, lines 20-35; Col. 11 lines 27-37 and lines 41-49; Col. 18 lines 60-66).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the method for estimating the accuracy of local hazard warnings in the system of Stenneth, with the feature of generating a degree of similarity based on hazard type, severity level, and proximity, in the system of Breiholz, in order to accurately determine the quality of the weather reports from different sources (see at least Col. 2 lines 14-17 of Breiholz).
Kiefer, in a similar field of endeavor, further teaches the features of generate, from the first hazard warning and the second hazard warning, ‘…’a single unified hazard condition warning. Kiefer teaches a method for alerting a driver of a vehicle, where the mode determination module 76) may determine that conditions data (96-100) present multiple alert modes (94), and generates multiple alerts, or alternatively, arbitrates between the alert modes based on a priority scheme to generate a single alert mode (94), or alternatively, arbitrates between the alert modes to create a combined alert (e.g. Paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the method for estimating the accuracy of local hazard warnings in the system of Stenneth, in view of Breiholz, with the feature of generating a combined hazard condition warning in the system of Kiefer, in order to minimize distracting alerts to the driver (see at least Paragraph [0017] of Kiefer).
As per Claim 2, and similarly for Claims 9 and 16, Stenneth, in view of Breiholz and Kiefer, teaches the features of Claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively, and Stenneth further teaches the features of wherein causing the apparatus to provide for at least one of navigational assistance or autonomous vehicle control based, at least in part, on the merged hazard polygon comprises causing the apparatus to provide for at least one of navigational assistance or autonomous vehicle control based, at least in part, on the merged hazard polygon and a position of a vehicle for which the at least one of navigational assistance or autonomous vehicle control is provided entering a geographic area corresponding to the merged hazard polygon (e.g. Paragraphs [0005], [0052], [0065]; where the apparatus provides for at least one of autonomous control or an indication to a user or vehicle based on the local hazard warning condition polygon in response to the vehicle entering or approaching a region corresponding to the local hazard warning condition, and the response to the detected local hazard warnings may include taking extra precautions, reducing a travel speed, increasing sensitivity of a traction control system, avoid the area covered by the polygon, etc.).
As per Claim 5, and similarly for Claims 12 and 19, Stenneth, in view of Breiholz and Kiefer, teaches the features of Claim 1, 8, and 15, respectively, and Breiholz further teaches the features of wherein causing the apparatus to generate, from the first hazard polygon and the second hazard polygon, the merged hazard polygon comprises causing the apparatus to generate from the first hazard polygon and the second hazard polygon, the merged hazard polygon in response to the first hazard polygon being within a predefined distance of the second hazard polygon.
Breiholz teaches a weather radar system and method with fusion of multiple weather information sources, where the processor (408) may merge or cross qualify portions, or ranges, of radar returns or weather data of several different sources, including weather data from one or more remote sources (414), so that a composite or fused image may be presented to the pilot in the form of a polygon format; where the image data derived from weather data (417a, 417b) may be spatially correlated by weather imaging module (418) (i.e. merged or determined to be overlapping) to determine the confidence factor reflecting the degree to which the weather data received from two or more sources agree in their characterization of the weather condition); where the weather cell locations may be created and assigned to all cells within a predetermined distance (e.g. a set number of nautical miles) of each other such that weather cells from each source within the predetermined distance from each other are assumed to be corresponding weather cells (e.g. Col. 10 lines 17-29; Col. 11 lines 27-37 and lines 41-49; Col. 12 lines 50-55; Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the method for estimating the accuracy of local hazard warnings in the system of Stenneth, with the feature of generating a merged polygon in the system of Breiholz, in order to accurately determine the quality of the weather reports from different sources (see at least Col. 2 lines 14-17 of Breiholz).
As per Claim 6, and similarly for Claims 13 and 20, Stenneth, in view of Breiholz and Kiefer, teaches the features of Claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, and Stenneth further teaches the features of wherein causing the apparatus to provide for autonomous vehicle control comprises causing the apparatus to cause a change of at least one vehicle setting of an autonomous vehicle in response to the autonomous vehicle entering a geographical area corresponding to the merged polygon (e.g. Claim 5; where the apparatus provides for a change in an operational state of a vehicle in response to the vehicle approaching or entering a region corresponding to the local hazard warning condition polygon).
As per Claim 7, and similarly for Claim 14, Stenneth, in view of Breiholz and Kiefer, teaches the features of Claims 1 and 8, respectively, and Stenneth further teaches the features of wherein the first hazard polygon is generated based on probe data points within a geographic region corresponding to the first hazard polygon indicating a hazard condition at locations corresponding to the probe data points (e.g. Claim 1; where the apparatus receives a plurality of probe data points from a plurality of probes within a mapped region, and each probe data point comprises location information, time information, and weather condition information; and where a local hazard warning condition polygon is generated based on the probe data).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenneth, in view of Breiholz and Kiefer, as applied to Claims 1, 8, and 11, above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,539,654 A1, to Weichbrod (hereinafter referred to as Weichbrod; newly of record).
As per Claim 4, and similarly for Claims 11 and 18, Stenneth, in view of Breiholz and Kiefer, teaches the features of Claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively, and but the combination of Stenneth, in view of Breiholz and Kiefer fails to teach every feature of wherein causing the apparatus to generate, from the first hazard polygon and the second hazard polygon, the merged hazard polygon comprises causing the apparatus to generate from the first hazard polygon and the second hazard polygon, the merged hazard polygon in response to the first hazard polygon at least partially overlapping the second hazard polygon.
Weichbrod teaches a method for providing weather and other hazard information, where the polygons may be merged when they overlap (e.g. Claim 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the method for estimating the accuracy of local hazard warnings in the system of Stenneth, in view of Breiholz and Kiefer, with the feature of generating a merged polygon based on overlapping polygons in the system of Weichbrod, in order to accurately reduce the total number of vertices and reduce the total data stream (see at least Col. 13 lines 23-24, and Col. 14 lines 9-11 of Weichbrod).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shirkhodai, et al (U.S. 2021/0056830 A1), which teaches a method for filtering hazard alerts by geography based on a hazard location, type, severity, and future expected location of the hazard, and providing combined alerts to a user.
Zhang, et al (U.S. 2020/0210461 A1), which teaches a method for providing a danger warning for a vehicle, where the system receives a plurality of data sets from a plurality of sources, determines the degree of matching and danger, and providing an alert to the user.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT E LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MERRITT E LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666