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 .
Application Status
This Final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 12/18/2024. Claims 10-16 and 18-21 are examined and pending. Claims1-9 have been withdrawn, claim 17 is cancelled, and claim 21 is new.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06 September 2024.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth in the Office Action of 05 August 2022 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner notes that the claim has not been amended as alleged in the remarks to “a memory configured to store” and therefore the claim interpretation under 112(f) is maintained.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the rejection as previously presented has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 have been fully considered but not all are persuasive.
Applicant specifically argue: Nowhere in Fields describes receiving a first state of a dynamic traffic sign and receiving a second state of the dynamic traffic light, let alone integrating the first state of the dynamic sign into a route map that is displayed and updating the route map to display the dynamic traffic sign having the second state. Therefore, Fields fails to disclose or suggest "integrating the first state of the dynamic traffic sign into a route map that is displayed, wherein the first state of the dynamic traffic sign is displayed proximate a location of the dynamic traffic sign on the route map; receiving a second state of the dynamic traffic sign by the vehicle; and updating the route map to display the dynamic traffic sign having the second state" as recited in amended claim 10.
However, examiner respectfully disagree. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Firstly, examiner points out that the dynamic traffic sign either the first or second does not need to be interpreted as a traffic light and traffic light states. The specification at least on paragraph 0078 defines the traffic signs as follows: “Examples of dynamic traffic signs include constructions, fallen trees, car accidents, speed trap, color of the traffic light etc.”. Fields as cited previously and throughout the reference Field discloses receiving state dynamic traffic sig(s) such as construction, lane closure, etc. Further the arguments in regards the newly added limitations, they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argues the following:
Step 2A: The claims are not directed to an abstract idea
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), "The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)." Further, at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), it states, "Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. See SRIInt'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019)."
Applicant submits that amended claim 10 includes features that cannot practically be performed by the human mind.
Applicant submits that in the context of claim 10 when viewed as a whole, the human mind could not practically integrate a first state of a dynamic traffic sign into a route map that is displayed, receive a first state and a second state of the dynamic traffic sign by a vehicle, and update the route map to display the dynamic traffic sign having the second state. Therefore, for at least the recitations "integrating the first state of the dynamic traffic sign into a route map that is displayed, wherein the first state of the dynamic traffic sign is displayed proximate a location of the dynamic traffic sign on the route map; receiving a second state of the dynamic traffic sign by the vehicle; and updating the route map to display the dynamic traffic sign having the second state," amended claim 10 includes recitations that cannot be practiced in the human mind and is thus eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Furthermore, applicant submits that in the context of claim 16 when viewed as a whole, the human mind could not receive a state of a dynamic traffic sign on the first route from a vehicle proximate the dynamic traffic sign, integrate the state of the dynamic traffic sign with the map data, predict a first travel time associated with the first route and predict a second travel time associated with a second route, which does not include the dynamic traffic sign, and generate a navigation map based on the comparison of the first travel time and the second travel time. Therefore, amended claim 16 includes recitations that cannot be practiced in the human mind and is thus eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The examiner has considered the arguments for step 2A prong 1 and respectfully disagree. The independent claims 10 and 16 recite notifying another vehicle of the first state of the dynamic traffic sign based on the other vehicle having a route that is proximate to the dynamic traffic sign; identify a second route between the start point and the end point, wherein the second route does not include the dynamic traffic sign; search for a first route between a start point and an end point; predict a first travel time associated with the first route; predict a second travel time associated with the second route; compare the first travel time being less than the second travel time. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
That is, other than reciting “a processor”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as traffic sign(s) data, start and end points of first and second routes could notify another vehicle (a person determining and notifying another vehicle) of the first state of the dynamic traffic sign based on the other vehicle having a route that is proximate to the dynamic traffic sign; identify a second route between the start point and the end point, wherein the second route does not include the dynamic traffic sign; search for a first route between a start point and an end point; predict a first travel time associated with the first route; predict a second travel time associated with the second route; compare the first travel time being less than the second travel time. The mere nominal recitation of “the processor” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
Secondly, applicant argues Step 2A, Prong 2 as follows:
Applicant respectfully submits that even if it is assumed claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea (a point which Applicant does not concede), the combination of recitations in amended claim 10 integrates any purported abstract idea into a practical solution, rendering the claim patent eligible.
One way to demonstrate integration of the exception into a practical application is "when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not 'directed to' the recited judicial exception." See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). The MPEP directs the Examiner to evaluate the specification to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(a).
The technology claimed herein provides for an improved navigation system that provides recommended routes that include "static traffic information (e.g., locations of traffic lights and/or stop signs)" and "dynamic traffic information (e.g., color of the traffic lights, temporary speed limit change zone). See Application as filed, paragraph 3. For example, as described in the pending application, "a driver may find a real-time update of traffic lights to be helpful in navigation... [a]s another example, a driver may find information about upcoming traffic lights around a blind curve reassuring in the driving experience. Therefore, it may be beneficial to provide efficient data processing for such context-based automotive safety applications." See id.
Claim 10, as amended, recite in part "receiving a first state of a dynamic traffic sign by a vehicle... integrating the first state of the dynamic traffic sign into a route map that is displayed, wherein the first state of the dynamic traffic sign is displayed proximate a location of the dynamic traffic sign on the route map; receiving a second state of the dynamic traffic sign by the vehicle; and updating the route map to display the dynamic traffic sign having the second state."
Therefore, the claim as a whole integrates the processes into a practical application. Thus, the claim is eligible because the claim is not directed to a recited judicial exception.
Moreover, one way to demonstrate integration of the exception into a practical application is "when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not 'directed to' the recited judicial exception." See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). The MPEP directs the Examiner to evaluate the specification to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(a).
The technology claimed herein provides for an improved navigation system that provides recommended routes that include "static traffic information (e.g., locations of traffic lights and/or stop signs)" and "dynamic traffic information (e.g., color of the traffic lights, temporary speed limit change zone). See Application as filed, paragraph 3. For example, as described in the pending application, "a driver may find a real-time update of traffic lights to be helpful in navigation." See id. As another example, as described in paragraph 2 of the pending application, "a navigation system may predict a travel time based on traffic and route information and suggest a route that has the least travel time or a route that has the shortest distance between the driver and the destination."
Claim 16, as amended, recite in part "predict a first travel time associated with the first route; predict a second travel time associated with the second route; compare the first travel time and the second travel time; responsive to the first travel time being less than the second travel time, generate a navigation map based on the integration of the state of the dynamic traffic sign with the map data using the first route; and responsive to the second travel time being less than the first travel time, generate a navigation map using the second route." Therefore, the claim as a whole integrates the processes into a practical application. Thus, the claim is eligible because the claim is not directed to a recited judicial exception.
The examiner has considered the arguments for step 2A prong 2 and respectfully disagree. The independent claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitations of receiving a first state of a dynamic traffic sign by a vehicle; receiving a second state of the dynamic traffic sign by the vehicle; receive a state of a dynamic traffic sign on the first route from a vehicle proximate the dynamic traffic sign; store map data and user's preference comprising preference for display of the state of the dynamic traffic sign; integrating the first state of the dynamic traffic sign into a route map that is displayed, wherein the first state of the dynamic traffic sign is displayed proximate a location of the dynamic traffic sign on the route; updating the route map to display the dynamic traffic sign having the second state; generate a navigation map based on the integration of the state of the dynamic traffic sign with the map data using the first route; generate a navigation map using the second rout; a processor, a transceiver, and a storage. The receiving and storing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., receiving/storing various data (traffic sign data, route data, start point and end points of first and second routes, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The integrating, updating, and generating steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a processor; a transceiver; and a storage are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
Thirdly, applicant argues Step 2B:
Without conceding ineligibility at Step 2A, Applicant further submits that the claims are eligible at Step 2B. At Step 2B, the Examiner must consider whether the claims provide significantly more than the alleged judicial exception. See MPEP 2106 (III). Applicant submits that the claims provide significantly more than the alleged judicial exception at least because they include the specific features discussed above in relation to Step 2A, Prong Two. These features, when considered alone and in combination with other claim features, provide significantly more than the alleged judicial exception and amount to an inventive concept. For example, as discussed above, the quoted features of claim 10 provide an improved navigation system for context-based automotive safety applications. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the claims should be found eligible at Step 2B.
Further, Applicant submits that the additional elements of claim 10 are not well- understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d). As discussed above with respect to the patentability of claim 10, "receiving a first state of a dynamic traffic sign by a vehicle... integrating the first state of the dynamic traffic sign into a route map that is displayed, wherein the first state of the dynamic traffic sign is displayed proximate a location of the dynamic traffic sign on the route map; receiving a second state of the dynamic traffic sign by the vehicle; and updating the route map to display the dynamic traffic sign having the second state" is not conventional. Therefore, even if the Examiner had concluded under revised Step 2A that claim 10 does not recite an additional element that is significant extra-solution activity (a point which Applicant does not concede), amended claim 10 is directed to patentable subject matter under Step 2B because at least the aforementioned recitations of amended claim 10 is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The examiner has considered the arguments for step 2B and respectfully disagree. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, storing, integrating, generating, and updating elements/steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these elements/steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Thus, the claims as presented are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As such, the rejection under USC 101 is maintained herein.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a storage configured to…” in claim 16. Corresponding structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function is found o paragraphs 0056-0060.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 10-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
Independent claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims 10 and 16 recite notifying another vehicle of the first state of the dynamic traffic sign based on the other vehicle having a route that is proximate to the dynamic traffic sign; identify a second route between the start point and the end point, wherein the second route does not include the dynamic traffic sign; search for a first route between a start point and an end point; predict a first travel time associated with the first route; predict a second travel time associated with the second route; compare the first travel time being less than the second travel time. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
That is, other than reciting “a processor”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as traffic sign(s) data, start and end points of first and second routes could notify another vehicle (a person determining and notifying another vehicle) of the first state of the dynamic traffic sign based on the other vehicle having a route that is proximate to the dynamic traffic sign; identify a second route between the start point and the end point, wherein the second route does not include the dynamic traffic sign; search for a first route between a start point and an end point; predict a first travel time associated with the first route; predict a second travel time associated with the second route; compare the first travel time being less than the second travel time. The mere nominal recitation of “the processor” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitations of receiving a first state of a dynamic traffic sign by a vehicle; receiving a second state of the dynamic traffic sign by the vehicle; receive a state of a dynamic traffic sign on the first route from a vehicle proximate the dynamic traffic sign; store map data and user's preference comprising preference for display of the state of the dynamic traffic sign; integrating the first state of the dynamic traffic sign into a route map that is displayed, wherein the first state of the dynamic traffic sign is displayed proximate a location of the dynamic traffic sign on the route; updating the route map to display the dynamic traffic sign having the second state; generate a navigation map based on the integration of the state of the dynamic traffic sign with the map data using the first route; generate a navigation map using the second rout; a processor, a transceiver, and a storage. The receiving and storing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., receiving/storing various data (traffic sign data, route data, start point and end points of first and second routes, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The integrating, updating, and generating steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a processor; a transceiver; and a storage are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, storing, integrating, and generating, and updating steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept? No).
Dependent claims 11-15 and 18-21 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 10-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields et al (US 9805601 A1) in view of Breed et al (US 20150197248 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Fields discloses receiving a first state of a dynamic traffic sign by a vehicle (see at least [abstract] and [Col. 26 lines 25-55]); notifying another vehicle of the state of the dynamic traffic sign based on the other vehicle having a route that is proximate the dynamic traffic sign (see at least [Col. 26 lines 25-55], [Col. 47 lines 1-14], and [Col. 48 line 48-Col. 49 line 4]); integrating the first state of the dynamic traffic sign into a route map that is displayed, wherein the first state of the dynamic traffic sign is displayed proximate a location of the dynamic traffic sign on a route map in the other vehicle (see at least [Col. 6 lines 14-33]).
However, Fields do not specifically disclose receiving a second state of the dynamic traffic sign by the vehicle; and updating the route map to display the dynamic traffic sign having the second state.
Breed et al teaches receiving a second state of the dynamic traffic sign by the vehicle (see at least [0372]); and updating the route map to display the dynamic traffic sign having the second state (see at least [0372]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Fields, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kiefer of receiving a second state of the dynamic traffic sign by the vehicle; and updating the route map to display the dynamic traffic sign having the second state. This would be done to improve the reliability of the maps by minimizing the chance for human error (see Breed para 0121).
With respect to claim 11, Fields discloses wherein the dynamic traffic sign comprises: the traffic light, a stop sign, a speed limit change sign, construction activity, road closure, detour route, a school zone indicator, a warning sign, a road sign, or combinations thereof (see at least [Col. 26 lines 25-55]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields et al (US 9805601 A1) in view of Breed et al (US 20150197248 A1) in view of Kiefer (US 20160093215 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Fields discloses identifying the vehicle is located in a region where an alert is issued (see at least [Col. 6 lines 14-33], [Col. 21 lines 7-23], and [Col. 26 lines 25-55]); notifying the vehicle of the alert (see at least [Col. 8 lines 60-66], [Col. 10 lines 40-53], and [Col. 48 line 48-Col. 49 line 4]).
However, Fields as modified by Breed do not specifically disclose displaying an option to view the alert.
Kiefer teaches displaying an option to view the alert (see at least [0003], [0005], and [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Fields as modified by Breed, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kiefer of displaying an option to view the alert. This would be done to reduce difficulty understanding an issued warning or alert by the driver once an option has been selected (see Kiefer para 0003).
With respect to claim 13, Fields as modified by Breed do not specifically disclose receiving feedback from a user for selective display of the state of the dynamic traffic sign.
Kiefer taches receiving feedback from a user for selective display of the state of the dynamic traffic sign (see at least [0003], [0005], and [0026-0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Fields as modified by Breed, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kiefer of receiving feedback from a user for selective display of the state of the dynamic traffic sign. This would be done to reduce difficulty understanding an issued warning or alert by the driver once an option has been selected (see Kiefer para 0003).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields et al (US 9805601 A1) in view of Breed et al (US 20150197248 A1) in view of Malkes et al (US 20190049264 A1).
With respect to claim 14, Field discloses integrating the dynamic traffic sign with map data stored on a local storage of the vehicle (see at least [Col. 6 lines 14-33]).
Fields as modified by Breed do not specifically disclose predicting an updated travel time based on the integration of the dynamic traffic sign and the map data.
Malkes teaches predicting an updated travel time based on the integration of the dynamic traffic sign and the map data (see at least [0023] and [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Fields as modified by Breed, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kiefer of predicting an updated travel time based on the integration of the dynamic traffic sign and the map data. This would be done increase convenience of driver by taking into consideration of travel time intervals, traffic flow rates, pedestrian count, vehicle types, time delays due to stop signals, and various other parameters to provide drivers with real-time data to help in choosing a route (see Malkes para 0004).
With respect to claim 15, Fields discloses wherein the map data comprises roads (see at least [Col. 21 lines 36-44]), intersections (see at least [Col.60 lines 50-63]), existing map information (see at least [Col. 19 lines21-43]), road signs (see at least [Col. 19 lines21-43]), exit information (see at least [Col. 45 lines 34-40]).
However, Fields as modified by Breed do not specifically disclose wherein the map data comprises user preferences, and locations of traffic lights.
Malkes teaches wherein the map data comprises user preferences, and locations of traffic lights (see at least [0029], [0047], and [0072-0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Fields as modified by Breed, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kiefer wherein the map data comprises user preferences, and locations of traffic lights. This would be done to increase convenience of driver by taking into consideration of travel time intervals, traffic flow rates, pedestrian count, vehicle types, time delays due to stop signals, and various other parameters to provide drivers with real-time data to help in choosing a route (see Malkes para 0004).
Claims 16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields et al (US 9805601 A1) in view of Neubauer (US 20200378783 A1).
With respect to claim 16, Fields discloses an apparatus comprising: a processor configured to search for a route between a start point and an end point (see at least [Col.7 lines 27-36], “…cause a display screen or user interface of a mobile device or smart vehicle controller of remote drivers to display a map with (1) a current route that the vehicle is on, (2) a virtual representation of the traffic event, and/or (3) an alternate or recommended new route to an original destination that avoids the traffic event…”); a transceiver configured to receive a state of a dynamic traffic sign on the route from a vehicle proximate the dynamic traffic sign (see at least [abstract] and [Col. 26 lines 25-55]); the processor further configured to: integrate the state of the dynamic traffic sign with the map data (see at least [Col. 6 lines 14-33]); identify a second route between the start point and the end point, wherein the second route does not include the dynamic traffic sign (see at least [Col.7 lines 27-36]).
Fields do not specifically disclose a storage configured to store map data and user's preference comprising preference for display of the state of the dynamic traffic sign; predict a first travel time associated with the first route; predict a second travel time associated with the second route; compare the first travel time and the second travel time; responsive to the first travel time being less than the second travel time, generate a navigation map based on the integration of the state of the dynamic traffic sign with the map data using the first route; and responsive to the second travel time being less than the first travel time, generate a navigation map using the second route.
Neubauer teaches a storage configured to store map data and user's preference comprising preference for display of the state of the dynamic traffic sign (see at least [0025-0028]); predict a first travel time associated with the first route (see at least [0025], [0028], [0044], [0054-0057], [0062], and [0067]); predict a second travel time associated with the second route (see at least [0025], [0028], [0044], [0054-0057], [0062], and [0067]); compare the first travel time and the second travel time (see at least [0025], [0028], [0044], [0054-0057], [0062], and [0067]); responsive to the first travel time being less than the second travel time, generate a navigation map based on the integration of the state of the dynamic traffic sign with the map data using the first route (see at least [0025], [0028], [0044], [0054-0057], [0062], and [0067]); and responsive to the second travel time being less than the first travel time, generate a navigation map using the second route (see at least [0025], [0028], [0044], [0054-0057], [0062], and [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Fields, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Neubauer of a storage configured to store map data and user's preference comprising preference for display of the state of the dynamic traffic sign; predict a first travel time associated with the first route; predict a second travel time associated with the second route; compare the first travel time and the second travel time; responsive to the first travel time being less than the second travel time, generate a navigation map based on the integration of the state of the dynamic traffic sign with the map data using the first route; and responsive to the second travel time being less than the first travel time, generate a navigation map using the second route. This would be done increase a user’s convenience when navigating to a destination (see Neubauer para 0001).
With respect to claim 20, Fields discloses wherein the dynamic traffic sign comprises: a traffic light, stop sign, speed limit change indicator, construction activity, road closure, detour route, school zone indicator, a warning sign, a road sign, or combinations thereof (see at least [Col. 26 lines 25-55]).
With respect to claim 21, Fields discloses a display coupled to the processor, the display configured to display the navigation map (see at least [Col. 6 lines 14-33]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields et al (US 9805601 A1) in view of Neubauer (US 20200378783 A1) in view of Grimm et al (US20170048080 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Fields discloses a speaker configured to audibly describe the state of the dynamic traffic sign based on the user's preference (see at least [0040-0053]).
However, Fields as modified by Neubauer do not specifically disclose wherein the user's preference further comprises preference for audio notification.
Obayuwana teaches wherein the user's preference further comprises preference for audio notification (see at least [0030] and [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Fields as modified by Neubauer, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kiefer wherein the user's preference further comprises preference for audio notification. This would be done to increase safety of drivers driving on roads in which hazardous conditions exist (see Grimm para 0006).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields et al (US 9805601 A1) in view of Neubauer (US 20200378783 A1) in view of Kiefer (US 20160093215 A1).
With respect to claim 19, Fields as modified by Neubauer do not specifically disclose wherein the user's preference further comprises preference for types of alerts to be displayed, wherein the transceiver is further configured to receive an alert issued for a region the vehicle is in, and wherein the display is configured to show the alert.
Kiefer teaches wherein the user's preference further comprises preference for types of alerts to be displayed (see at least [0003], [0005], and [0028]), wherein the transceiver is further configured to receive an alert issued for a region the vehicle is in (see at least [0003], [0005], and [0028]), and wherein the display is configured to show the alert (see at least [0003], [0005], and [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Fields as modified by Neubauer, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kiefer wherein the user's preference further comprises preference for types of alerts to be displayed, wherein the transceiver is further configured to receive an alert issued for a region the vehicle is in, and wherein the display is configured to show the alert. This would be done to reduce difficulty understanding an issued warning or alert by the driver once an option has been selected (see Kiefer para 0003).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in the office action. Accordingly, 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667