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 action is made final.
Claims 21-47 are pending. Claims 21, 30, and 36 are independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-29 and 41-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites:
“wherein idleness comprises movement below a velocity threshold for at least a time window”
“(i) computing, from the digital surface model, surface features that meet obstruction criteria comprising one or more of height, slope, or class”
“(ii) correlating idle-asset geo-spatial locations with the surface features within a proximity threshold”
These limitations are not sufficiently supported in the specification. The specification makes no mention of a “velocity threshold”, “obstruction criteria”, nor “proximity threshold”, much less the details claimed regarding these features.
Dependent claims 22-29 and 41-47 are also rejected due to inheriting the deficiencies of claim 21.
Claims 41-44, 46, and 47 recite limitations which are not sufficiently supported in Applicant’s specification.
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 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 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nerayoff et al. (US 2016/0078759 A1), in view of Adams et al. (US 2012/0226390 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Nerayoff teaches a system (Nerayoff, computer system 500 of FIG. 5 and [0255]), comprising:
a memory (Nerayoff, main memory 506 of FIG. 5 and [0255]); and
a processor (Nerayoff, processor 504 of FIG. 5 and [0255]) configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
receiving aerial images of an environment from an unmanned aerial vehicle ([0041]: “At least one unmanned aerial vehicle 700 may be wirelessly connected to the network 110. The unmanned aerial vehicle 700 may include a camera that can be used in place of or in conjunction with one or both of the identification camera 120 and destination camera 125.”; FIG. 3A and [0061-0062]: one or more images are obtained and processed from destination camera 125, which as supported in [0041], may be a camera of unmanned aerial vehicle 700);
([0041]: “At least one unmanned aerial vehicle 700 may be wirelessly connected to the network 110. The unmanned aerial vehicle 700 may include a camera that can be used in place of or in conjunction with one or both of the identification camera 120 and destination camera 125.”; FIG. 3A and [0061-0062]: a digital surface model of an environment is generated using at least image 126 from the unmanned aerial vehicle 700. One or more mobile assets, including at least 320a-c and 320e-I, are located using at least image 126. The digital surface model includes specified destination locations 310a-310i, 320a-c and 320e-i, and destination location 340. The environment corresponds to a portion of an urban street; See FIG. 2B and [0047] for another example of a digital surface model);
receive data from one or more mobile assets located in the environment, indicating idleness of the one or more mobile assets and respective geo-spatial locations of the one or more mobile assets (FIG. 1 and [0084-0090], [0227-0229]: data indicating parked/idle mobile assets and their respective geo-spatial locations is received from and provided by one or more mobile assets via identification and destination cameras and sensors of the mobile assets. For example, vehicles/mobile assets each have an in-vehicle GPS that sense that the idle/parked status of the respective vehicle, the status then being reported to server system 140. The server system 140 also interpolates the identities of the parked/idle vehicles);
identify one or more structures within the environment as causes of the idleness (FIG. 3A and [0061-0062]: one or more structures here include at least destination locations 310a-c and 310e-i, which are potential causes of the one or more mobile assets 320a-c and 320e-i being idle based on a comparison of the geo-spatial locations of these mobile assets and the digital surface model. In other words, the comparison identifies when destination locations are being or not being used by vehicles. As a further example, [0061] discloses “If a vehicle is determined to have made use of destination location 340 by remaining stationary for a period of time, the vehicle will be considered in violation”);
(FIG. 3A and [0061-0062]: one or more structures here include at least destination locations 310a-c and 310e-I are highlighted as they are specified to server system 140);
Nerayoff does not explicitly teach a display; geo-rectifying or ortho-rectifying the images to generate a geo-referenced digital surface model; configure a user interface to highlight one or more areas corresponding to the one or more structures, and, responsive to a change in a user-selected map zoom level, subdividing an aggregated idleness cluster into sub-clusters at a finger geographic resolution, and updating the highlighted areas to reflect the sub-clusters, wherein the user interface further employs a color-coded and time-segmented visualization of idleness and the highlighted structures; and cause the display to visually present the user interface.
Adams teaches
a display (FIG. 3 and [0031-0033]: vehicle management user interface 300, which identifies one or more structures, such as roads, within the environment as potential causes of the one or more mobile assets being idle, is outputted to a display of a user device, such as a management device 135 described in FIG. 1 and [0020]. For example, symbols 302 include “blue idle signs to indicate a vehicle that is idling”, as supported in [0031]);
geo-rectifying or ortho-rectifying the images and generating a geo-referenced digital surface model of the environment based on the rectified images (FIG. 1, [0024], and [0044]: computing system corresponds to vehicle management system 110. Mapping module 115/geo-rectification software generates a digital surface model of the environment based on geo-rectified images. The one or more images are geo-rectified according to a geographic information system (GIS), as commonly understood among those of ordinary skill in the art);
receive data from one or more mobile assets located in the environment indicating idleness of the one or more mobile assets and respective geo-spatial locations of the one or more mobile assets (FIG. 1 and [0019-0024] and FIG. 3 and [0031-0033]: data is received from and provided by one or more mobile assets, the data provided via in-vehicle devices 105A-N of the mobile assets, the data indicating idleness and respective geo-spatial locations);
configure a user interface to highlight one or more areas corresponding to the one or more structures (FIG. 3 and [0031-0033]: vehicle management user interface 300 highlights one or more areas corresponding to the one or more structures, such as roads or streets, where one or more mobile assets are idle. For example, symbols 302 include “blue idle signs to indicate a vehicle that is idling”, as supported in [0031]. Note that selection of a symbol 302 produces a popup box 310 which shows the addresses of current locations, including roads or streets, of idling vehicles) and, responsive to a change in a user-selected map zoom level, subdividing an aggregated idleness cluster into sub-clusters at a finger geographic resolution, and updating the highlighted areas to reflect the sub-clusters, wherein the user interface further employs a color-coded and time-segmented visualization of idleness and the highlighted structures (FIGS. 3-4 and [0039-0048]: a user-selected map zoom level is changed as seen in the transition from FIG. 3 to FIG. 4. A cluster is subdivided into sub-clusters and areas, such as roads or streets, are highlighted to reflect the sub-clusters. There is a color-coded and time-segmented visualization representing idleness and the highlighted structures); and
cause the display to visually present the user interface (FIG. 3 and [0031-0033]: vehicle management user interface 300, which identifies one or more structures, such as roads, within the environment as potential causes of the one or more mobile assets being idle, is outputted to a display of a user device, such as a management device 135 described in FIG. 1 and [0020]. For example, symbols 302 include “blue idle signs to indicate a vehicle that is idling”, as supported in [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nerayoff by incorporating the teachings of Adams and include a display; geo-rectifying or ortho-rectifying the images to generate a geo-referenced digital surface model; configure a user interface to highlight one or more areas corresponding to the one or more structures, and, responsive to a change in a user-selected map zoom level, subdividing an aggregated idleness cluster into sub-clusters at a finger geographic resolution, and updating the highlighted areas to reflect the sub-clusters, wherein the user interface further employs a color-coded and time-segmented visualization of idleness and the highlighted structures; and cause the display to visually present the user interface. Doing so would allow a user, like a manager, to visually monitor the status of vehicles and be alerted when vehicles are idle, likely indicating lowered productivity to prompt correction for efficient fleet management to save at least time (like travel time), money (like costs of operation from fuel, vehicle wear, etc.), resources (like fuel), and so on. Furthermore, the user would be able to visualize the areas corresponding to the structures to more quickly understand where the potential source of idling is so as to more effectively assess fleet management. Moreover, using geo-rectification software would allow the system to more precisely determine the geo-location of vehicles. In this way, idling vehicles are less likely to be attributed to wrong locations, further improving the utility of the digital map and, thus, fleet management accuracy. In addition, a visual display of the user interface would allow a user, like a manager, to visually monitor the status of vehicles and be alerted when vehicles are idle, likely indicating lowered productivity to prompt correction for efficient fleet management to save at least time (like travel time) and/or money (like fuel). Moreover, allowing the user to change a zoom level allows the user to view more relevant and detailed data of sub-clusters representing a specific portion of data, reducing clutter on the user interface for easier data analysis. Finally, having a color-coded and time-segmented visualization of idleness and the highlighted structures organize different categories of data so that the user can more easily comprehend data.
Regarding claim 31, Nerayoff in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 30. Although Nerayoff teaches a display of a user device (display 512 of computer system 500 of FIG. 5 and [0256]), Nerayoff does not explicitly teach outputting, to a display of a user device, the user interface the one or more structures.
Adams further teaches outputting, to a display of a user device, the user interface identifying the one or more structures (FIG. 3 and [0031-0033]: vehicle management user interface 300, which identifies and highlights one or more structures, such as roads, within the environment as potential causes of the one or more mobile assets being idle, is outputted to a display of a user device, such as a management device 135 described in FIG. 1 and [0020]. For example, symbols 302 include “blue idle signs to indicate a vehicle that is idling”, as supported in [0031].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display of Nerayoff by incorporating the teachings of Adams and include outputting, to a display of a user device, the user interface the one or more structures. Doing so would allow a user, like a manager, to visually monitor the status of vehicles and be alerted when vehicles are idle, likely indicating lowered productivity to prompt correction for efficient fleet management to save at least time (like travel time) and/or money (like fuel).
Regarding claim 33, Nerayoff in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 30. Nerayoff further teaches wherein the one or more structures are in a portion of the environment (FIG. 3A and [0061]: the one or more structures/destination locations are in a portion of the environment/urban street), and wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
predict the portion of the environment from the one or more images captured by the unmanned aerial vehicle ([0272], FIG. 3A and [0061]: for example, the unmanned aerial vehicle has captured a previous image and, by performing an automated analysis process, predicts a future location of a vehicle, like vehicle 330, this future location corresponding to a portion of urban street like a portion seen in FIG. 3A).
Regarding claim 34, Nerayoff in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 30. Nerayoff further teaches wherein the one or more structures are in a first portion of the environment (FIG. 3A and [0061]: the one or more structures/destination locations are in a first portion of the environment/urban street), and wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
determine a second portion of the environment that includes one or more features in common with the first portion of the environment (FIG. 3B and [0063]: see this second portion of the urban street that includes one or more features in common with the first portion seen in FIG. 3A; [0006-0009] and [0065-0067]: as a vehicle moves across the field of view of the camera, there is an overlap between an image captured at the first instance and the second instance where the camera is at a different location. This overlap at the second instance capturing a second portion of the environment indicates one or more features in common with the first portion of the environment; See FIG. 4 and its corresponding paragraphs for supplemental details regarding capturing overlaps between first and second portions of an environment).
Regarding claims 36, 38, and 39, the claims recite a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors (Nerayoff, FIG. 5 and [0258-0260]) to perform operations comprising operations with corresponding limitations to the system of claims 30, 33, and 34, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Claims 32 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nerayoff et al. (US 20160078759 A1), in view of Adams et al. (US 2012/0226390 A1), and in view of Mizuta (US 2017/0161410 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Nerayoff in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 30. Nerayoff in view of Adams does not explicitly teach indicating a change to the one or more structures to reduce idleness.
Mizuta teaches indicating a change to the one or more structures to reduce idleness ([0057], [0078-0080]: [0080]: for example, an indicated change may relate to construction of a new road to reduce idleness, or reduce traffic congestion and/or increase traffic flow. Other examples of change include, expanding the amount of lanes, providing an additional roadway connected to the intersection, installing a roundabout at the intersection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nerayoff in view of Adams by incorporating the teachings of Mizuta and include indicating a change to the one or more structures to reduce idleness. Doing so would offer solutions that would promote more efficient travel among mobile assets by changing structures that may impede the flow of traffic.
Regarding claim 37, Nerayoff in view of Adams teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions of claim 36. Nerayoff in view of Adams does not explicitly teach outputting, to a display of a user device, a graphical user interface indicating a suggestion to modify the one or more structures to address the potential causes of idleness.
Mizuta teaches outputting, to a display of a user device, a graphical user interface indicating a suggestion to modify the one or more structures to address the potential causes of idleness (FIG. 1, [0036], [0057], [0078-0080]: [0080]: for example, a change may be to construct a new road to reduce idleness, or reduce traffic congestion and/or increase traffic flow. Other examples of change include, expanding the amount of lanes, providing an additional roadway connected to the intersection, installing a roundabout at the intersection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nerayoff in view of Adams by incorporating the teachings of Mizuta and include eoutputting, to a display of a user device, a graphical user interface indicating a suggestion to modify the one or more structures to address the potential causes of idleness. Doing so would offer solutions displayable to the user that would promote more efficient travel among mobile assets by changing structures that may impede the flow of traffic.
Claims 35 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nerayoff et al. (US 20160078759 A1), in view of Adams et al. (US 2012/0226390 A1), and in view of Aziz et al. (US 2017/0352082 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Nerayoff in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 30. Nerayoff further teaches wherein the one or more structures are in a first portion of the environment (FIG. 3A and [0061]: the one or more structures/destination locations are in a first portion of the environment/urban street).
Nerayoff in view of Adams does not explicitly teach determine that the one or more mobile assets will idle more in the first portion of the environment than in a second portion of the environment.
Aziz teaches determine that the one or more mobile assets will idle more in the first portion of the environment than in a second portion of the environment ([0135-0136]: the system determines that the one or more mobile assets will idle more in a first portion of the environment than a second portion of the environment. For example, the system can calculate that a normally traveled route/first portion of environment has a higher percentage of idling time than alternative routes, including a second portion of the environment.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nerayoff in view of Adams by incorporating the teachings of Aziz and include determine that the one or more mobile assets will idle more in the first portion of the environment than in a second portion of the environment. Doing so would allow the system to indicate to the user a more effective route that minimizes idling time to save fuel for the one or more mobile assets.
Regarding claims 40, the claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions performing operations comprising operations with corresponding limitations to the system of claim 35 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Response to Arguments
The claim amendments have rendered Applicant’s arguments regarding double patenting and 35 U.S.C. 101 moot. However, Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 regarding the 112(a) rejections and the prior art rejection under 103 of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding the 112(a) rejections of claims 41-44, 46, and 47, there is sufficient support provided in the specification.
Regarding amended independent claims 21, 30, and 36:
Nerayoff does not teach UAV aerial imaging or DSM generation (pp. 16-17 of Remarks).
Nerayoff and Adams fail to teach DSM-derived obstruction criteria and proximity-bound correlation to idle assets (p. 17 of Remarks).
The claim’s idleness definition (velocity threshold + time window) is not taught (p. 18 of Remarks).
The zoom-responsive sub-clustering UI and color-/time-segmented highlights are absent (p. 18 of Remarks).
No reasoned motivation to combine; the proposed combination would change the principle of operation (p. 19).
Even if combined, the result still would not yield the claimed arrangement (p. 19).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding point (a), Applicant provides various explanations regarding the claimed features of the claims rejected under 112(a) yet fails to provide any citation from the specification that would indicate support for these claimed features. Indeed, Applicant’s amendments to these claims not only fail to rectify the 112(a) issues, they add details that also do not have sufficient support in the specification. Indeed, Applicant’s amendment of claim 21 has introduced new matter, necessitating the rejection of claim 21 and its dependent claims under 112(a). Applicant is advised to review section 608.04 of the MPEP for context of what constitutes new matter.
Regarding point (b)(i), Applicant has performed an improper piecemeal analysis regarding a feature which was rejected under the combination of Nerayoff in view of Adams, not Nerayoff alone. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding point (b)(ii), this argument is moot. See the 112(a) rejection regarding the argued feature.
Regarding point (b)(iii), this argument is moot. See the 112(a) rejection regarding the argued feature.
Regarding point (b)(iv), Applicant’s amendments incorporate newly claimed features which are addressed in the current Office Action. Applicant is advised to review at least the mapping provided for the argued feature with respect to Adams.
Regarding points (b)(v), in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Applicant is advised to review the motivation to combine the references.
Regarding point (b)(vi), this argument is moot with respect to the various problematic features claimed in claim 21. See the 112(a) rejection regarding the argued features.
In conclusion, independent claim 21 recites various features which do not have sufficient support from Applicant’s specification. Accordingly, the claim is rejected under 112(a). Independent claims 30 and 36 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nerayoff et al. (US 2016/0078759 A1), in view of Adams et al. (US 2012/0226390 A1). The dependent claims are accordingly rejected with the appropriate combination of references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KENNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7AM to 5PM.
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, KIEU D VU can be reached on (571)272-4057. 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.
/KENNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171