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 the Application
This action is in reply to the Application Number 17/825,758 filed on May 26th, 2022.
Claims 135-160 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 10/21/2025.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2025 and 05/26/2022 have been acknowledged by the examiner.
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.
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 135-147 and 150-160 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2018/0025235 A1 to Fridman (hereinafter Fridman) in view of US20140136098A1 to Stroila (hereinafter Stroila), further in view of US Pub. No. 2013/0085668 A1 to Roberts, SR. et al. (hereinafter Roberts).
Regarding claims 135, 154 and 155:
Fridman teaches:
A system for automatically generating a navigational map relative to one or more road segments, the system comprising: at least one processor programmed to: ( Fridman, para. [0011]. “a system for generating a sparse map for autonomous vehicle navigation along a road segment…comprise at least one processing device”)
cause collection of first navigational information associated with an environment traversed by a host vehicle as the host vehicle traverses a target trajectory,( Fridman, para. [0198], “the sparse map may be generated based on data collected during multiple drives of one or more vehicles along a particular roadway”)
determine, based on an output associated with one or more sensors of the host vehicle, a location of the host vehicle as the host vehicle traverses the target trajectory; ( Fridman, para. [21], “determine, based on an output of at least one navigational sensor, a measured position of the vehicle along a predetermined road model trajectory”)
wherein the second navigational information includes a plurality of three-dimensional feature points (Fridman, para[332], “Light Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) measurements may be used to accurately match world positions in different drives. Feature point descriptors may then be computed at the image region corresponding to these world points at different viewpoints and drive times”)
the plurality of vehicles being configured to navigate at least partially autonomously using the navigational map (Fridman, para. [0282], “With respect to FIG. 26, the autonomous vehicle road navigation model may be used by the autonomous vehicles in autonomously navigating along the common road segment 1200” )
Fridman does not explicitly teach, but Stroila teaches:
wherein the first navigational information is collected using a sensor of the host vehicle in a first collection mode;( Stroila, para[49], “The imaging device 522 includes two cameras. A low resolution camera collects image data continuously”, para[50], “The low resolution camera may include a very small resolution (e.g., 480 by 640 pixels, 768 by 1024 pixels, or another resolution) and may include a low frame rate”)
the host vehicle to change from the first collection mode to a second collection mode to collect second navigational information using the sensor of the host vehicle, the second navigation information being associated with the environment traversed by the host vehicle as the host vehicle traverses the target trajectory, ( Stroila, para[49], “A high resolution camera collects image data when triggered”, and para[06], “The captured images may be used to update a navigation or map database”)
receive from the host vehicle at least one of the collected first navigational information or the collected second navigational information ( Stroila, para[34], “The captured image may be stored in mobile device 122 and/or sent to the server”)
update the navigational map based on the received at least one of the collected first navigational information or the collected second navigational information ( Stroila, para[77], “collect images to provide updates to a map database”)
distribute the navigational map to a plurality of vehicles( Stroila, para[77], “collect images to provide updates to a map database…which are distributed to other users”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Roberts into the invention of Stroila with a reasonable expectation of success to provide up-to-date and accurate geographic data (Stroila: para. 0005).
Fridman does not teach the following limitation which is taught by Roberts, in the same field of invention:
determine whether the location of the host vehicle is at or within a predetermined distance from a geographical region of interest; (Roberts, para. [10], “The method further includes determining whether the vehicle location is within the geofence surrounding the point of interest and accessing information associated with the point of interest”)
cause, based on the determination that the location of the host vehicle is at or within the predetermined distance from the geographical region of interest, (Roberts, claim 1, “if it is determined that the vehicle location is entering, within…the geofence surrounding the at least one point of interest”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Roberts into the invention of Fridman with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the efficiency and capability of document transmission and processing systems for freight carriers (Roberts ‘668: para. 0007).
Regarding claim 136;
Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 135. Fridman further teaches:
The system of claim 135, wherein the plurality of three- dimensional feature points are associated with one or more detected objects in the environment traversed by the host vehicle. (Fridman, para. [0148], “detect other vehicles, pedestrians, lane marks, traffic signs, traffic lights, and other road objects. Further, the first processing device may calculate a disparity of pixels between the images from the main camera and the narrow camera and create a 3D reconstruction of the environment of vehicle 200.” )
Regarding claim 137;
Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 135. Fridman further teaches:
The system of claim 135, wherein each of the plurality of three-dimensional feature points include an indicator of depth relative to the camera onboard the host vehicle. (Fridman, para. [0332], “In a third scheme, a database augmenting that of the first scheme with precise vehicle position, vehicle orientation and image pixel depth using Light Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) measurements may be used to accurately match world positions in different drives”).
Regarding claim 138;
Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 135. Fridman further teaches:
The system of claim 135, wherein each of the plurality of three-dimensional feature points include an X-Y-Z location relative to a real world origin. (Fridman, para. [0224], “FIG. 9B shows a three-dimensional polynomial representing a target trajectory for a vehicle traveling along a particular road segment. The target trajectory represents not only the X-Y path that a host vehicle should travel along a particular road segment, but also the elevation change that the host vehicle will experience when traveling along the road segment”)
Regarding claims 139 and 156, 158;
Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 135. Fridman further teaches:
The system of claim 135, wherein the plurality of three- dimensional feature points included in the second navigational information are a plurality of second three-dimensional feature points and the first navigational information includes a plurality of first three-dimensional feature points . (Fridman, para. [0224], “each target trajectory in sparse map 800 may be represented by one or more three-dimensional polynomials, like the three-dimensional polynomial 950 shown in FIG. 9B. Sparse map 800 may include a plurality of trajectories (e.g., millions or billions or more to represent trajectories of vehicles along various road segments along roadways throughout the world). In some embodiments, each target trajectory may correspond to a spline connecting three-dimensional polynomial segments”)
Regarding claims 140 and 157;
Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 139. Fridman does not explicitly teach, but Stroila teaches:
The system of claim 139, wherein the first collection mode is associated with a first density level at which the first three-dimensional feature points are collected and the second collection mode is associated with a second density level at which the second three-dimensional feature points are collected, the second density level being greater than the first density level. ( Stroila, para[50], “The low resolution camera may include a very small resolution (e.g., 480 by 640 pixels, 768 by 1024 pixels, or another resolution) and may include a low frame rate … The high resolution camera may include a relatively large resolution (e.g., 5 megapixels, 10 megapixels, or another resolution) and may include a high frame rate”, and para[67], “The camera 209 may include a LIDAR sensor.”, and para[75], “The sensor data may include multiple three-dimensional… coordinate”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Roberts into the invention of Stroila with a reasonable expectation of success to provide up-to-date and accurate geographic data (Stroila: para. 0005).
Regarding claims 141-143;
Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 140. Fridman does not explicitly teach, but Stroila teaches:
The system of claim 140, wherein the second density level is at least two times greater than the first density level. ( Stroila, para[50], “The low resolution camera may include a very small resolution (e.g., 480 by 640 pixels, 768 by 1024 pixels, or another resolution) and may include a low frame rate … The high resolution camera may include a relatively large resolution (e.g., 5 megapixels, 10 megapixels, or another resolution) and may include a high frame rate”)
The system of claim 140, wherein the second density level is at least five times greater than the first density level. ( Stroila, para[50], “The low resolution camera may include a very small resolution (e.g., 480 by 640 pixels, 768 by 1024 pixels, or another resolution) and may include a low frame rate … The high resolution camera may include a relatively large resolution (e.g., 5 megapixels, 10 megapixels, or another resolution) and may include a high frame rate”)
The system of claim 140, wherein the second density level is at least ten times greater than the first density level. ( Stroila, para[50], “The low resolution camera may include a very small resolution (e.g., 480 by 640 pixels, 768 by 1024 pixels, or another resolution) and may include a low frame rate … The high resolution camera may include a relatively large resolution (e.g., 5 megapixels, 10 megapixels, or another resolution) and may include a high frame rate”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Roberts into the invention of Stroila with a reasonable expectation of success to provide up-to-date and accurate geographic data (Stroila: para. 0005).
Regarding claim 144 and 159;
Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 139. Fridman does not explicitly teach, but Stroila teaches:
The system of claim 139, wherein the first collection mode is associated with a first type of features associated with the first three- dimensional feature points and the second collection mode is associated with a second type of features associated with the second three-dimensional feature points, the first type of features being different than the second type of features. ( Stroila, para[50], “The low resolution camera may include a very small resolution (e.g., 480 by 640 pixels, 768 by 1024 pixels, or another resolution) and may include a low frame rate … The high resolution camera may include a relatively large resolution (e.g., 5 megapixels, 10 megapixels, or another resolution) and may include a high frame rate”, para[50], “ the low resolution may not be capable of reliably imaging attributes that require fine detail, …The high resolution may be ideal for imaging fine detail ”, and para[67], “The camera 209 may include a LIDAR sensor.”, and para[75], “The sensor data may include multiple three-dimensional… coordinate”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Roberts into the invention of Stroila with a reasonable expectation of success to provide up-to-date and accurate geographic data (Stroila: para. 0005).
Regarding claim 145;
Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 135. Fridman does not explicitly teach, but Stroila teaches:
The system of claim 135, wherein the second collection mode includes collecting the plurality of three-dimensional feature points ( Stroila, para[50], “The high resolution camera may include a relatively large resolution (e.g., 5 megapixels, 10 megapixels, or another resolution) and may include a high frame rate”, and para[67], “The camera 209 may include a LIDAR sensor.”, and para[75], “The sensor data may include multiple three-dimensional… coordinate”)
and the first collection mode includes not collecting three-dimensional feature points. ( Stroila, para[50], “The low resolution camera may include a very small resolution (e.g., 480 by 640 pixels, 768 by 1024 pixels, or another resolution)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Roberts into the invention of Stroila with a reasonable expectation of success to provide up-to-date and accurate geographic data (Stroila: para. 0005).
Regarding claim 146;
Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 135. Fridman teaches:
The system of claim 135, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: receive location information from the host vehicle; ( Fridman, para. [21], “determine, based on an output of at least one navigational sensor, a measured position of the vehicle along a predetermined road model trajectory”)
Fridman does not teach the following limitation which is taught by Roberts, in the same field of invention:
and determine, based on the received location information, whether the host vehicle traveled within the geographical region of interest. (Roberts, para. [10], “The method further includes determining whether the vehicle location is within the geofence surrounding the point of interest and accessing information associated with the point of interest”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Roberts into the invention of Fridman with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the efficiency and capability of document transmission and processing systems for freight carriers (Roberts ‘668: para. 0007).
Regarding claim 147;
Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 146. Fridman does not explicitly teach, but Stroila teaches:
The system of claim 146, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to receive from the host vehicle the collected second navigational information ( Stroila, para[49], “A high resolution camera collects image data when triggered”, and para[06], “The captured images may be used to update a navigation or map database”)
Fridman does not teach the following limitation which is taught by Roberts,
based on a determination that the host vehicle traveled within the geographical region of interest. (Roberts, para. [10], “The method further includes determining whether the vehicle location is within the geofence surrounding the point of interest and accessing information associated with the point of interest”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Roberts into the invention of Fridman with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the efficiency and capability of document transmission and processing systems for freight carriers (Roberts ‘668: para. 0007).
Regarding claim 150;
Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 135. Fridman teaches:
The system of claim 135, wherein the at least one of the collected first navigational information or the collected second navigational information is received at a predetermined frequency according to a frequency rule. (Fridman , para. 0090, “Wireless transceiver 172 may include one or more devices configured to exchange transmissions over an air interface to one or more networks (e.g., cellular, the Internet, etc.) by use of a radio frequency, infrared frequency, magnetic field, or an electric field. Wireless transceiver 172 may use any known standard to transmit and/or receive data (e.g., Wi-Fi, Bluetooth®, Bluetooth Smart, 802.15.4, ZigBee, etc.). Such transmissions can include communications from the host vehicle to one or more remotely located servers” )
Regarding claim 151;
Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 135. Fridman teaches:
The system of claim 135, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive and store both the first navigational information and the second navigational information. (Fridman : para. 0014, “The at least one processing device may be further configured to store, on the non-transitory storage medium, the navigation information associated with the common road segment”)
Regarding claim 152;
Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 135. Fridman teaches:
The system of claim 135, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to request transmission of a subset of the first navigational information or the second navigational information collected by the host vehicle. (Fridman : para. 0090, “Such transmissions can include communications from the host vehicle to one or more remotely located servers.”)
Regarding claim 153;
Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 135. Fridman teaches:
The system of claim 135, wherein the location of the host vehicle is determined at predetermined time intervals. (Fridman : para. 0182, “processing unit 110 may compare the leading vehicle's instantaneous position with the look-ahead point (associated with vehicle 200) over a specific period of time (e.g., 0.5 to 1.5 seconds)”
Regarding claim 160;
Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 135. Fridman does not explicitly teach, but Stroila teaches:
The system of claim 135, wherein first collection mode is associated with a first data transmission bandwidth between the host vehicle and a server ( Stroila, para[49], “The imaging device 522 includes two cameras. A low resolution camera collects image data continuously”, para[50], “The low resolution camera may include a very small resolution… and may include a low frame rate”, and para[34], “The captured image may … sent to the server”)
and the second collection mode is associated with a second data transmission bandwidth between the host vehicle and the server. ( Stroila, para[50], “The high resolution camera may include a relatively large resolution (e.g., 5 megapixels, 10 megapixels, or another resolution) and may include a high frame rate”, and para[34], “The captured image may … sent to the server”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Roberts into the invention of Stroila with a reasonable expectation of success to provide up-to-date and accurate geographic data (Stroila: para. 0005).
Claim 148 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2018/0025235 A1 to Fridman (hereinafter Fridman) in view of US20140136098A1 to Stroila (hereinafter Stroila), and US Pub. No. 2013/0085668 A1 to Roberts, SR. et al. (hereinafter Roberts), and in further view of US Pub. No. 2005/0222750 A1 to Tsuge et al. (hereinafter Tsuge) and WO Pub. No. 2007/089996 A2 to Kellum (hereinafter Kellum).
Regarding claim 148;
Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 146. Fridman teaches:
The system of claim 146, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to transmit instructions, to the host vehicle, (Fridman : para. 0365, “The portion of the model transmitted from server 1230 to vehicle 1205 may include an updated portion of the model. The at least one processor 2315 may cause at least one navigational maneuver (e.g., steering such as making a turn, braking, accelerating, passing another vehicle, etc.) by vehicle 1205 based on the received autonomous vehicle road navigation model or the updated portion of the model”)
Fridman does not teach the following limitation which is taught by Tsuge,
instructions to discard the collected second navigational information (Tsuge, para. 0037 “discards the vehicle position information of the information” ).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Tsuge into the invention of Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the car navigation system to calculate recommended routes based on geographical and VICS information to avoid traffic congestion (Tsuge ‘750: para. 0005).
Fridman does not teach the following limitation which is taught by Kellum,
based on a determination that the host vehicle did not travel within the geographical region of interest.( Kellum, para. 0026, “If the first vehicle is not currently located at the geographic region… then the updating is skipped” )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Kellum into the invention of Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts and in further view of Tsuge with a reasonable expectation of success to improve vehicle's estimate of the vehicle's path using the roadway shape and to improve the fuel economy or driver performance by using the derived roadway grade” (Kellum ‘996: para. 0021).
Claim 149 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2018/0025235 A1 to Fridman (hereinafter Fridman) in view of US20140136098A1 to Stroila (hereinafter Stroila), and US Pub. No. 2013/0085668 A1 to Roberts, SR. et al. (hereinafter Roberts), US Pub. No. 2005/0222750 A1 to Tsuge et al. (hereinafter Tsuge) and WO Pub. No. 2007/089996 A2 to Kellum (hereinafter Kellum), and in further view of US Pub. No. 2020/0219401 A1 to Ren et al. (hereinafter Ren).
Regarding claim 149;
Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts, Tsuge , Kellum, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 148. Fridman does not explicitly teach, but Kellum teaches:
The system of claim 148, wherein the determination that the host vehicle did not travel within the geographical region of interest ( Kellum, para. 0026, “If the first vehicle is not currently located at the geographic region… then the updating is skipped” )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Kellum into the invention of Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts and in further view of Tsuge with a reasonable expectation of success to improve vehicle's estimate of the vehicle's path using the roadway shape and to improve the fuel economy or driver performance by using the derived roadway grade” (Kellum ‘996: para. 0021).
Fridman does not explicitly teach, but Ren teaches:
determining that the host vehicle approached to within the predetermined distance from the geographical region of interest (Ren, para. 0060, “When a vehicle approaches medium intensity geofence 602 (or vice versa), vehicle occupants can be given a warning (e.g., audible, visual, tactile, etc.). A movement restriction command can force the vehicle to a stop completely at a pre-determined distance from geofence 602”)
and then moved away to at least the predetermined distance away from the geographical region of interest. (Ren, para. 0060, “The vehicle is … away from geofence 602”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Ren into the invention of Fridman in view of Stroila, and Roberts, Tsuge , Kellum with a reasonable expectation of success to improve products for using geofences to restrict vehicle operation (Ren ‘401: para. 0012).
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
103 rejection. The applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest at least the amended following features of claim 135, “caus[ing] collection of first navigational information associated with an environment traversed by a host vehicle as the host vehicle traverses a target trajectory, wherein the first navigational information is collected using a sensor of the host vehicle in a first collection mode; [and] caus[ing], based on the determination that the location of the host vehicle is at or within the predetermined distance from the geographical region of interest, the host vehicle to change from the first collection mode to a second collection mode to collect second navigational information using the sensor of the host vehicle, the second navigational information being associated with the environment traversed by the host vehicle as the host vehicle traverses the target trajectory.”
In response of A). The examiner respectively disagrees. Fridman teaches a system for automatically generating a navigational map relative to one or more road segments in para. [0011]. “a system for generating a sparse map for autonomous vehicle navigation along a road segment…comprise at least one processing device”. Fridman further teaches caus[ing] collection of first navigational information associated with an environment traversed by a host vehicle as the host vehicle traverses a target trajectory in para. [0198], “the sparse map may be generated based on data collected during multiple drives of one or more vehicles along a particular roadway”. Stroila teaches wherein the first navigational information is collected using a sensor of the host vehicle in a first collection mode using a low resolution camera installed in the host vehicle in para[49], “The imaging device 522 includes two cameras. A low resolution camera collects image data”. Stroila further teaches the host vehicle to change from the first collection mode to a second collection mode to collect second navigational information using the sensor of the host vehicle, the second navigation information being associated with the environment traversed by the host vehicle as the host vehicle traverses the target trajectory in using a high resolution camera installed in the host vehicle in para[49], “A high resolution camera collects image data when triggered”, and para[06], “The captured images may be used to update a navigation or map database”. Roberts teaches determining whether the location of the host vehicle is at or within a predetermined distance from a geographical region of interest in para. [10], “The method further includes determining whether the vehicle location is within the geofence surrounding the point of interest and accessing information associated with the point of interest”. Furthermore, Roberts teaches caus[ing], based on the determination that the location of the host vehicle is at or within the predetermined distance from the geographical region of interest in claim 1 “if it is determined that the vehicle location is entering, within…the geofence surrounding the at least one point of interest”. Therefore, Fridman in view of Stroila and Roberts teach each and every claim element of amended claim feature of claim 135. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Roberts into the invention of Stroila with a reasonable expectation of success to provide up-to-date and accurate geographic data (Stroila: para. 0005).
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 extension fee 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 KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667