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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment/remarks filed 06/25/2026. No claim been amended and no claim have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 12-14 filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant discloses that Serbansecu fails to disclose “analyzing… only the isolated raw telematics data points associated with the particular trip that are within the bounding box representing the area associated with the intersection” and that Para. 0099-0100 of Serbansecu discloses pre-processing the data, and therefore the “isolated raw telematics data points associated with the particular trip that are within the bounding box representing the area associated with the intersection” are not only analyzed. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The preprocessing of Para. 0099-0100 shows (a) dividing each GPS trace into one or more trips and (b) rejecting individual low-accuracy clipping trips at large time claps. Neither of these operations constitute “analysis” of the specific particular trip for intersection purposes. This is a data hygiene and a generic data quality control step that is applied irrespective of any intersection. Para. 0099-0100 applies for every trip, and not to one particular trip that is singled out for special treatment. Para. 0099-0100 describe a generic trip agnostic preprocessing rule applied to the entire population of trips before any specific trip and any intersection specific analysis begins.
The Serbansecu reference is a secondary reference merely for the limitations of comparing a bounding box representing an area associated with an intersection associated with a particular vehicle trip in order to isolate telematics data points associated with the vehicle trip that are within the bounding box representing the area associated with the intersection and analyzing only the telematics data points associated with the particular vehicle trip that are within the bounding box representing the area associated with the intersection. Serbansecu discloses no dependance between the Para. 0099-0100 step and the bounding box step at Para. 0139-0142. Para. 0099-0100 discloses a generic trip wide data conditioning while Para. 0139-0142 discloses a separate intersection specific spatial filtering step using a bounding box (which is what is used for the secondary reference). Nowhere in the reference does it disclose or imply that the bounding box filtering step is inoperable without the specific preprocessing step of Para. 0099-0100. Nowhere does it state that the bounding-box technique would fail or was intended to operate only on data that has been preprocessed through Para. 0099-0100. Furthermore, Serbansecu is only cited for its teaching that spatially restricting analysis of trip data to a bounding box around an intersection is known in the art. The examiner relies on Para. 0139-0142 alone, which is a self-contained embodiment that satisfies the limitation on its own. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection remains.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorum et al. US20140244125A1 (henceforth Dorum) in view of Serbanescu et al. US20110112760A1 (henceforth Serbanescu).
Regarding claim 1,
Dorum discloses:
A computer-implemented method, comprising: obtaining, by one or more processors, raw telematics data points associated with a particular vehicle trip;
(See Fig. 9 and Para. 0069, wherein data associated with a particular vehicle trip is obtained.)
determining, by the one or more processors, based on analyzing, an average acceleration of a portion of the particular vehicle trip through the intersection (See at least Para. 0069, wherein the average acceleration of the portion of the vehicle trip through the intersection (i.e. see Para. 0074, wherein the road segment can include an intersection) is determined. Further see Para. 0035, “The given position for the analysis may be defined for each curve along the spline. In one example, each curve includes two positions for analysis. A first position is the position where, on average, drivers of probe vehicles begin to brake and/or decelerate for the upcoming curve. The second position is the position where, on average, drivers of the probe vehicles stop braking and/or decelerating for the curve”.)
comparing, by the one or more processors, for the intersection, the average acceleration of the portion of the particular vehicle trip through the intersection to an aggregated average acceleration of other trips through the intersection by other vehicles in order to determine a measure of safety associated with the portion of the particular vehicle trip through the intersection.
(See at least Para. 0070, “At act S205, the controller 200 compares the speed of the vehicle or the acceleration of the vehicle to a typical driver behavior dimension of a data model, which may be a spline curve or a discrete data model. The spline curve may be accessed according to the current position of the vehicle and/or direction of the vehicle received in act S201. The discrete data model, which may be an ADAS model, is not analytical. Instead, individual values for behavior based data (e.g., position, heading, slope, lateral acceleration, speed, acceleration, or other metrics) are stored in a data table“ and Para. 0025, “Behavior based models are derived from analyzing probe data. These models provide the actual speed driven analytically, e.g. as a spline curve so that the speed at any point on the road can be determined in each direction of travel. The lateral acceleration at any point on the road in each direction may be computed. The curvature (k) of the path (e.g., lane, road, sidewalk, street, or highway) allows calculation of the lateral acceleration (a) from the speed or velocity (v): a=k*v*v. In other words, lateral acceleration is the curvature times the square of the speed. The curvature is computed from the ADAS spline or from a curve fit to probe data. Probe data is projected onto the ADAS spline to allow spatial ordering of the data to associate probes with corresponding spline/road location. Spatial sorting along this line determines average driving behavior at any point along the road along with standard deviations”. The average acceleration of the vehicle (i.e. see Para. 0069, “average acceleration”) of the vehicle is compared to the average acceleration of other vehicles going through the intersection. Further see Para. 0065-0066, wherein a measure of safety associated with a road segment (i.e. including an intersection) is determined.)
and generating, by the one or more processors, a warning to a driver associated with the particular vehicle trip based on the determined measure of safety associated with the portion of the particular vehicle trip through the intersection.
(See at least Para. 0071, “the controller 200 generates a warning when the speed or the acceleration indicates that the typical driver behavior dimension has been exceeded. The warning may include a message that is displayed on the display 211.” A warning is generated to the driver of the vehicle based on the measure of safety associated with the road segment (i.e. including an intersection).)
Dorum discloses comparing and analyzing data associated with an intersection to raw telematics data points associated with a particular vehicle trip but does not specifically state “comparing, by the one or more processors, a bounding box representing an area associated with an intersection to the raw telematics data points in order to isolate any raw telematics data points representing the area associated with the intersection” and “analyzing, by the one or more processors, only the isolated raw telematics data points that are within the bounding box representing the area associated with the intersection”.
However Serbanescu teaches:
comparing, by the one or more processors, a bounding box representing an area associated with an intersection to the raw telematics data points associated with the particular vehicle trip in order to isolate any raw telematics data points associated with the particular vehicle trip that are within the bounding box representing the area associated with the intersection; analyzing, by the one or more processors, only the isolated raw telematics data points associated with the particular vehicle trip that are within the bounding box representing the area associated with the intersection; (See at least Para. 0016, “The or each trips passing through a determined route may subsequently be analyzed”. Further see Fig. 10, Block 1000, and Para. 0141, “Apply spatial filtering of GPS fixes within the trips being processed by using a bounding box around the intersection at hand… That is, a determination is made of the which GPS fixes correspond to a portion of a trip passing through an intersection”. A bounding box is used to isolate telematic data points associated with a particular vehicle trip within the bounding box representing the area associated with the intersection, such that only the isolated data points are analyzed.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dorum to incorporate the teachings of Serbanescu to include the limitations “comparing, by the one or more processors, a bounding box representing an area associated with an intersection to the raw telematics data points in order to isolate any raw telematics data points representing the area associated with the intersection” and “analyzing, by the one or more processors, only the isolated raw telematics data points that are within the bounding box representing the area associated with the intersection” in order to process data to be used in navigation devices (Para. 0001, Serbanescu). Additionally, combining Dorum to include bounding boxes to isolate data points for analyzing would create a more robust system for efficiently analyzing intersection and road crossing data, and would further reduce the burden on processors due to the volume of sensor data. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Dorum and Serbanescu. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2,
Dorum discloses:
wherein determining the average acceleration of the portion of the particular vehicle trip through the intersection based on the raw telematics data points associated with the particular vehicle trip representing the area associated with the intersection includes: determining, by the one or more processors, a direction of movement associated with the raw telematics data points associated with the particular vehicle trip representing the area associated with the intersection; (See at least Para. 0038, wherein the direction of travel is determined with the raw telematics data points associated with the vehicle trip. Further see Para. 0069-0070, wherein the average acceleration of the vehicle is determined. Since acceleration has a direction, then the direction of movement associated with the raw telematics data points are also determined. Additionally, see Para. 0074, wherein the road segment can include an intersection.)
comparing, by the one or more processors, the raw telematics data points associated with the particular vehicle trip representing the area associated with the intersection to a line representing a spatial average path of portions of other vehicle trips through the intersection having the same determined direction of movement; (See at least Fig. 4 and Para. 0053-0054, wherein a line representing a spatial average path of portions of other vehicle trips having the same determined direction of travel is determined. Further see Para. 0063, wherein the poly-curve that is based on the sets of telematics data is sent to the mobile device 122, such that the average acceleration is determined. Further see Para. 0070, wherein the raw data for the vehicle is compared to other vehicle trips through the same area.)
validating, by the one or more processors, based on the comparison, that the raw telematics data points associated with the particular vehicle trip representing the area associated with the intersection are associated with an actual vehicle traversal of the intersection; (See at least Para. 0069-0070, wherein the area associated with the road segment (i.e. see Para. 0074, wherein the road segment can include an intersection), represents an actual vehicle traversal of the intersection. The controller 200 is doing the validation by considering multiple parameters of the vehicle (i.e. including speed, braking, and lateral acceleration).)
and determining, by the one or more processors, the average acceleration of the portion of the particular vehicle trip through the intersection based on the raw telematics data points associated with the particular vehicle trip that are validated as being associated with the actual vehicle traversal of the intersection.
(See at least Para. 0069-0070, wherein the area associated with the road segment (i.e. see Para. 0074, wherein the road segment can include an intersection), represents an actual vehicle traversal of the intersection. Since the controller 200 is doing the validation by considering multiple parameters of the vehicle (i.e. including speed, braking, and lateral acceleration), then that includes determining the average acceleration through the road segment that are already validated (i.e. considered vehicle acceleration point) with the actual vehicle traversal.)
Dorum does not specifically state “a bounding box representing the area associated with the intersection”. However, Serbanescu teaches:
a bounding box representing an area associated with an intersection
(See at least Para. 0141, “Apply spatial filtering of GPS fixes within the trips being processed by using a bounding box around the intersection at hand”.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dorum to incorporate the teachings of Serbanescu to include “a bounding box representing the area associated with the intersection” in order to more efficiently process data to be used in navigation devices (Para. 0001, Serbanescu). Additionally, combining Dorum to include bounding boxes to isolate data points for analyzing would create a more robust system for efficiently analyzing intersection and road crossing data, and would further reduce the burden on processors due to the volume of sensor data. This would create a more robust system for analyzing the detailed information relating to intersection in which vehicles travel. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Dorum and Serbanescu. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 6,
Dorum discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Dorum does not specifically state “analyzing, by the one or more processors, road map data in order to generate the bounding box representing the area associated with the intersections”.
However, Serbanescu teaches:
analyzing, by the one or more processors, road map data in order to generate the bounding box representing the area associated with the intersections
(See at least Para. 0022-0023, and Para. 0141, wherein road map data is analyzed to generate the bounding box associated with the intersection.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dorum to incorporate the teachings of Serbanescu to include “analyzing, by the one or more processors, road map data in order to generate the bounding box representing the area associated with the intersections” in order to more efficiently process data to be used in navigation devices (Para. 0001, Serbanescu). Additionally, combining Dorum to include bounding boxes to isolate data points for analyzing would create a more robust system for efficiently analyzing intersection and road crossing data, and would further reduce the burden on processors due to the volume of sensor data. This would create a more robust system for analyzing the detailed information relating to intersection in which vehicles travel. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Dorum and Serbanescu. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 8,
Dorum and Serbanescu discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and motivation rational.
Regarding claim 9,
Dorum and Serbanescu discloses the limitations as recited in claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and motivation rational.
Regarding claim 13,
Dorum and Serbanescu discloses the limitations as recited in claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and motivation rational.
Regarding claim 15,
Dorum and Serbanescu discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and motivation rational.
Regarding claim 16,
Dorum and Serbanescu discloses the limitations as recited in claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and motivation rational.
Regarding claim 20,
Dorum and Serbanescu discloses the limitations as recited in claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and motivation rational.
Claims 3-5, 7, 10-12, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorum and Serbanescu further in view of Fryer et al. US20130204524A1 (henceforth Fryer).
Regarding claim 3,
Dorum and Serbanescu discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Dorum does not specifically state when the particular vehicle trip includes raw data points within two bounding boxes associated with two subsequent intersections, defining, by the one or more processors, any raw telematics data points associated with the particular vehicle trip between the two bounding boxes as being associated with a road segment connecting the two subsequent intersections.
However, Fryer teaches:
when the particular vehicle trip includes raw data points within two bounding boxes associated with two subsequent intersections, defining, by the one or more processors, any raw telematics data points associated with the particular vehicle trip between the two bounding boxes as being associated with a road segment connecting the two subsequent intersections.
(See Fig. 9 and Para. 0106, wherein the data points associated with the vehicle trip between the two bounding boxes is associated with a road segment that connects the two intersection.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dorum to incorporate the teachings of Fryer to include “when the vehicle trip includes raw data points within two bounding boxes associated with two subsequent intersections, defining, by the one or more processors, any raw telematics data points associated with the vehicle trip between the two bounding boxes as being associated with a road segment connecting the two subsequent intersections” in order to exclude street links (See Para. 0106, Fryer) that are not relevant, which would create a more robust system for evaluating data. Street segments that are negligible is extra data that is not needed, and therefore isolating the relevant data would create a more robust system for evaluating the relevant data. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Dorum and Fryer. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 4,
Dorum, Serbanescu and Fryer discloses the limitations as recited in claim 3 above.
Dorum discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, but instead of an “intersection”, the claim recites a “road segment”. The intersection of Dorum is also considered a road segment, and therefore the limitations of claim 4 are also rejected under the same rational as the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5,
Dorum, Serbanescu and Fryer discloses the limitations as recited in claims 3 and 4 above. Dorum discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above, but instead of an “intersection”, the claim recites a “road segment”. The intersection of Dorum is also considered a road segment, and therefore the limitations of claim 5 are also rejected under the same rational as the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 7,
Dorum and Serbanescu discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Dorum does not specifically state receiving, by the one or more processors, input from a user indicating the bounding box representing the area associated with the intersection.
However, Fryer teaches:
receiving, by the one or more processors, input from a user indicating the bounding box representing the area associated with the intersection. (See Fig. 9 and Para 0111, “For example, in some embodiments the user can input his current and destination locations, can update costs for given streets or routes, or can change his destination en route.” Since the bounding boxes are created based on the user’s input of a current and destination locations (See Fig. 9 and Para. 0103-105), then this includes an input of a user indicating the plurality of bounding boxes representing areas associated with the intersection.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dorum to incorporate the teachings of Fryer to include “receiving, by the one or more processors, input from a user indicating the bounding box representing the area associated with the intersection” in order to exclude street links (See Para. 0106, Fryer) that are not relevant, which would create a more robust system for evaluating data. Further, a user indicating the plurality of bounding boxes would create a more robust system for user autonomy to select the bounding boxes for a certain segment to be included. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Dorum and Fryer. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 10,
Dorum, Serbanescu, and Fryer discloses the limitations as recited in claim 3 above, and therefore the same rejection and motivation rational applies to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11,
Dorum, Serbanescu, and Fryer discloses the limitations as recited in claim 4 above, and therefore the same rejection rational applies to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12,
Dorum, Serbanescu, and Fryer discloses the limitations as recited in claim 5 above, and therefore the same rejection rational applies to claim 12.
Regarding claim 14,
Dorum, Serbanescu, and Fryer discloses the limitations as recited in claim 7 above, and therefore the same rejection and motivational rational applies to claim 14.
Regarding claim 17,
Dorum, Serbanescu, and Fryer discloses the limitations as recited in claim 3 above, and therefore the same rejection and motivation rational applies to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18,
Dorum, Serbanescu, and Fryer discloses the limitations as recited in claim 4 above, and therefore the same rejection and motivation rational applies to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19,
Dorum, Serbanescu, and Fryer discloses the limitations as recited in claim 5 above, and therefore the same rejection and motivation rational applies to claim 19.
Conclusion
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 GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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 Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights