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 1-4, 6-15, 17-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 11, and 19 are independent claims. Claims 5 and 16 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayes et al. (US 2018/0059687 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hayes teaches a system (FIG. 1 and [0018-0021]) comprising:
a memory configured to store computer executable instructions (FIG. 2 and [0022-0024]); and
one or more processors (FIG. 2 and [0022-0024]) configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain a set of vehicle features associated with a dispensing vehicle travelling along a link dispensing particles (FIG. 3 and [0028-0029], FIG. 6 and [0083]: a link may be at least one segment along the route from the start location to the end location; FIG. 4 and [0030-0046], [0104-0107]: a set of vehicle features associated with a dispensing vehicle travelling along a link is obtained. For example, a vehicle feature may be the travel time 422 for the vehicle to complete a trip along a link. Other vehicle features may be the amount of intersections 404 or turns 406 the vehicle must traverse along the link. Another vehicle feature may be the vehicle type 414 and/or cargo type 412. Note that other vehicle features and combinations thereof may be obtained as the set of vehicle features; [0036] and [0104-0105]: see various types of vehicles, including dispensing vehicle dispensing particles. As supported in [0045] of Applicant’s specification, “the particle may be an object or an article”), wherein the set of vehicle features associated with the dispensing vehicle includes at least one of: a travel route of the dispensing vehicle, dimensions associated with a dispensing opening of the dispensing vehicle, total load of particles carried by the dispensing vehicle, a rate of dispensing of particles through the dispensing opening, or time of travel of the dispensing vehicle (FIG. 3 and [0028-0029], FIG. 6 and [0083]: a link may be at least one segment along the route from the start location to the end location; FIG. 4 and [0030-0046], [0104-0107]: a set of vehicle features associated with a dispensing vehicle travelling along a link is obtained. For example, a vehicle feature may be the travel time 422 for the vehicle to complete a trip along a link. Other vehicle features may be the amount of intersections 404 or turns 406 the vehicle must traverse along the link. Another vehicle feature may be the vehicle type 414 and/or cargo type 412. Note that other vehicle features and combinations thereof may be obtained as the set of vehicle features; [0036] and [0104-0105]: the vehicle may be a dispensing vehicle dispensing particles. As supported in [0045] of Applicant’s specification, “the particle may be an object or an article”);
determine a set of risk-related features associated with the dispensed particles along the link based at least on the set of vehicle features (FIG. 4 and [0030-0046], [0104-0107]: based on a set of vehicle features, a set of risk-related features associated with the dispensed particles is determined. As supported in [0104], “One or more elements of a route risk profile and/or a route recommendation may be recalculated based on the cargo type being changed,” the route risk profile including various risk-related features associated with the cargo type, or dispensed particles. For example, the travel time 422 is a risk-related feature in that the risk of a trip may increase based on a longer travel time. Furthermore, a greater number of intersections 404 or turns 406 may indicate higher risk. The vehicle type 414 is also a risk-related feature. For example, a sturdy car is more resistant to damage, and thus less risky, than a less sturdy car. As another example, a car capable of higher speeds may be considered more risky than one that is not. Note that other risk-related features and combinations thereof may be determined as the set of risk-related features);
obtain map data associated with the link (FIG. 3 and [0028-0030], FIG. 6 and [0080-0085], FIGS. 7A-H and [0090-0105]: map data is obtained associated with the link, or at least one segment of the route. For example, map data may include at least the start location and end location);
based on the set of risk-related features and the map data, determine a risk value for the link (FIG. 3 and [0060], FIG. 4 and [0030-0046], [0062-0063], step 616 of FIG. 6 and [0083]: a risk value is determined for each segment. The risk values may be combined to determine an amount of risk, like a risk value in a dollar amount. Risk value may be expressed as other types of numbers; FIGS. 7A-H and [0090-0105]: see examples of risk values having been determined to arrive at a total risk for each route); and
update a map database associated with the link, based on the risk value (FIG. 7H and [0103-0108]: server/map database, stores updated information for making a risk prediction. For example, a risk level based on a cargo type is provided for a particular vehicle, this risk level contributing to the risk value for the link. Based on the risk value for the link, the map database/server is updated in order to recalculate one or more elements of a route risk profile and/or a route recommendation).
Regarding claim 2, Hayes further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: update navigation instructions for travelling on the link based on the risk value (FIG. 5 and [0061-0079], steps 618-626 of FIG. 6 and [0084-0089], FIGS. 7C-H, [0094-0108]: navigation instructions are updated for travelling on the link based on the risk value).
Regarding claim 4, Hayes further teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the updated navigation instructions include at least one of: an alternative link recommendation or a risk warning message for travelling on the link, when the risk value is more than a predefined threshold ([0053-0056], [0099]: see example in [0099] in which alternative link recommendation is provided).
Regarding claim 6, Hayes further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the set of vehicle features associated with the dispensing vehicle is determined based on tracking of the dispensing vehicle (FIG. 3 and [0025-0030], FIG. 4 and [0030-0046]: GPS tracks the vehicle and set of vehicle features are determined based on tracking).
Regarding claim 7, Hayes further teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the tracking of the dispensing vehicle is performed based on at least one of: vehicles travelling along the travel route of the dispensing vehicle, or metadata provided by a third-party server associated with the dispensing vehicle (FIG. 3 and [0025-0030], FIG. 4 and [0030-0046]: GPS tracks the vehicle. The vehicle may be tracked at a location with traffic 416, indicative of other vehicles travelling along the travel route).
Regarding claim 9, Hayes further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the map data includes at least one of: link geometry, speed limit, intersections information, or link conditions (FIG. 4 and [0030-0046], [0104-0107]: For example, intersections information is included as part of map data).
Regarding claim 11, 12, 14, 16, and 17, the claims recite a method comprising limitations corresponding to the system of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 9, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the claims recite a computer programmable product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium ([0124]) having stored thereon computer executable instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to carry out operations comprising limitations corresponding to 1 and 2, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. (US 2018/0059687 A1), in view of Sumikawa et al. (US 2020/0284603 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hayes teaches the system of claim 2.
Although Hayes teaches predetermined intervals of time tracking the vehicle (steps 618-626 of FIG. 6 and [0084-0089], FIG. 7H and [0103-0108]: As stated in [0086], “For example, as vehicle 602 is driving, mobile device 604 may provide regular or irregular updates to server 606 regarding the current location of mobile device 604 and/or vehicle 602.”), Hayes does not explicitly teach dynamically determine a risk value for one or more points on the link at predetermined intervals of time based on the set of risk-related features and the map data associated with the link; and update the navigation instructions based on the risk value of the one or more points on the link.
Sumikawa teaches wherein the one or more processors (FIG. 1 and [0069]) are further configured to:
dynamically determine a risk value for one or more points on the link at predetermined intervals of time based on the set of risk-related features and the map data associated with the link; and
update the navigation instructions based on the risk value of the one or more points on the link (FIG. 6 and [0055], FIG. 7 and [0065]: a risk value is dynamically determined for one or more points at predetermined time intervals, or every predetermined time period. Navigation instructions for risk avoiding route are updated based on the risk value of the one or more points on the link).
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 Hayes by incorporating the teachings of Sumikawa so as to include dynamically determine a risk value for one or more points on the link at predetermined intervals of time based on the set of risk-related features and the map data associated with the link; and update the navigation instructions based on the risk value of the one or more points on the link. Doing so would allow more accurate assessment of risks in real-time so as to provide a more updated and safer navigation route.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites a method corresponding to the system of claim 3 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 8, 10, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. (US 2018/0059687 A1), in view of George et al. (US 2017/0199045 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Hayes teaches the system of claim 1.
Hayes does not explicitly teach obtain environment data associated with the link, wherein the environment data includes environmental effect on dispensed particles from the dispensing vehicle; and determine the risk value for the link, based on the set of risk-related features, the map data, and the environment data.
George teaches obtain environment data associated with the link, wherein the environment data includes environmental effect on dispensed particles from the dispensing vehicle; and determine the risk value for the link, based on the set of risk-related features, the map data, and the environment data (FIG. 3 and [0019-0027]: environment data, including environmental effect on dispensed particles, is obtained associated with the link. The risk is determined based on the set of risk-related features, including weather and air pollution, map data, including travel routes, and environment data, including environmental conditions and calculated emission).
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 Hayes by incorporating the teachings of George so as to include obtain environment data associated with the link, wherein the environment data includes environmental effect on dispensed particles from the dispensing vehicle; and determine the risk value for the link, based on the set of risk-related features, the map data, and the environment data. Doing so would alleviate environmental damage and potentially conserve fuel resources and thus costs. In this way, the travel route may minimize negative health effects for surrounding populations and likely also improve the fuel economy of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, Hayes teaches the system of claim 1.
Hayes does not explicitly teach wherein the set of risk-related features associated with the link includes at least one of: change in a road condition parameter due to particles dispensed by the dispensing vehicle, change in a driving condition parameter due to the particles dispensed by the dispensing vehicle, or an impact parameter associated with impact of the particles dispensed by the dispensing vehicle on a vehicle on the link.
George teaches wherein the set of risk-related features associated with the link includes at least one of: change in a road condition parameter due to particles dispensed by the dispensing vehicle, change in a driving condition parameter due to the particles dispensed by the dispensing vehicle, or an impact parameter associated with impact of the particles dispensed by the dispensing vehicle on a vehicle on the link (FIG. 3 and [0019-0027]: environment data, including environmental effect on dispensed particles, is obtained associated with the link. The risk is determined based on the set of risk-related features, including weather and air pollution, map data, including travel routes, and environment data, including environmental conditions and calculated emission).
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 Hayes by incorporating the teachings of George so as to include wherein the set of risk-related features associated with the link includes at least one of: change in a road condition parameter due to particles dispensed by the dispensing vehicle, change in a driving condition parameter due to the particles dispensed by the dispensing vehicle, or an impact parameter associated with impact of the particles dispensed by the dispensing vehicle on a vehicle on the link. Doing so would alleviate environmental damage and potentially conserve fuel resources and thus costs. In this way, the travel route may minimize negative health effects for surrounding populations and likely also improve the fuel economy of the vehicle.
Regarding claims 15 and 18, the claims recite a method corresponding to the system of claims 8 and 10, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding independent claim 1,
“Hayes fails to disclose obtaining the vehicle features associated with the dispensing vehicle which is dispensing particles along the link” (second paragraph on p. 8 of Remarks).
“Moreover, Hayes also fails to disclose the vehicle features such as a travel route of the dispensing vehicle, dimensions associated with a dispensing opening of the dispensing vehicle, total load of particles carried by the dispensing vehicle, a rate of dispensing of particles through the dispensing opening, or time of travel of the dispensing vehicle, as recited in claim 1” (second paragraph on p. 8 of Remarks).
“Hayes does not consider the risk relating to dispensed particles along the link based at least on the set of vehicle features. Thus, Hayes also fails to disclose the feature of ‘determine a set of risk-related features associated with the dispensed particles along the link based at least on the set of vehicle features’ as recited by Applicant’s independent claim 1” (fourth paragraph on p. 8 of Remarks).
“Hayes fails to disclose the feature of ‘based on the set of risk-related features and the map data, determine a risk value for the link’, as recited by claim 1” (second paragraph on p. 9 of Remarks).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding point (a)(i), Applicant’s argument include examples of what may be considered “particles” (second paragraph on p. 8 of Remarks). However, without providing additional clarification, it is unclear Applicant’s intent of providing these examples in the context of Hayes purportedly failing to “disclose obtaining the vehicle features associated with the dispensing vehicle which is dispensing particles along the link” as argued by Applicant (second paragraph on p. 8 of Remarks). If Applicant intends to argue that the claimed “particles” and “dispensing vehicle” are not sufficiently taught by Hayes, the Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument persuasive and the Examiner’s position, as previously explained in the previous Non-Final Office Action (pp. 13-14), remains the same: the claimed “dispensing vehicle” and “particles” do not preclude Hayes’ teachings.
To be sure, Hayes teaches “obtain a set of vehicle features associated with a dispensing vehicle travelling along a link dispensing particles” as required by claim 1 (FIG. 3 and [0028-0029], FIG. 6 and [0083]; FIG. 4 and [0030-0046], [0104-0107]). As seen in FIG. 4, a set of vehicle features associated with a dispensing vehicle may include the travel time 422 for the vehicle to complete a trip along a link, the amount of intersections 404 or turns 406 the vehicle must traverse along the link, the vehicle type 414, and/or the cargo type 412. Other vehicle features and combinations thereof may be obtained as the set of vehicle features. These vehicle features are associated with a dispensing vehicle travelling along a link dispensing particles, as supported in [0036] and [0104-0105]. For example, a dispensing vehicle travelling along a link may be a delivery truck, ice-cream truck, mail truck, school bus, a truck transporting lumber, or so on. The “dispensing vehicle” as claimed does not preclude the teachings of Hayes. As supported in [0045] of Applicant’s specification, “the particle may be an object or an article.” The use of the word “particles” also does not preclude the teachings of Hayes. Thus, Hayes sufficiently teaches “obtain a set of vehicle features associated with a dispensing vehicle travelling along a link dispensing particles” as required by claim 1.
Regarding point (a)(ii), the claim requires that the set of vehicle features includes at least one of: a travel route of the dispensing vehicle, dimensions associated with a dispensing opening of the dispensing vehicle, total load of particles carried by the dispensing vehicle, a rate of dispensing of particles through the dispensing opening, or time of travel of the dispensing vehicle. For example, Hayes teaches the set of vehicle features including a travel route of the dispensing vehicle and/or at least a time of travel of the dispensing vehicle. As seen in FIG. 3 and [0028-0029] and FIG. 6 and [0083] of Hayes, a link may be at least one segment along the route from the start location to the end location. Furthermore, FIG. 4, [0030-0046], and [0104-0107] of Hayes disclose a set of vehicle features associated with a dispensing vehicle travelling along a link is obtained. For example, a vehicle feature may be the travel time 422 for the vehicle to complete a trip along a link. Other vehicle features may be the amount of intersections 404 or turns 406 the vehicle must traverse along the link. Another vehicle feature may be the vehicle type 414 and/or cargo type 412. Note that other vehicle features and combinations thereof may be obtained as the set of vehicle features. Such features are related associated with a dispensing vehicle (Hayes, [0036] and [0104-0105]. Thus, Hayes sufficiently teaches the argued limitations.
Regarding point (a)(iii), the Examiner’s position is that Hayes teaches “determine a set of risk-related features associated with the dispensed particles along the link based at least on the set of vehicle features” as required by claim 1 (FIG. 4 and [0030-0046], [0104-0107]). Based on a set of vehicle features, a set of risk-related features associated with the dispensed particles along the link is determined. As supported in [0104], “One or more elements of a route risk profile and/or a route recommendation may be recalculated based on the cargo type being changed,” the route risk profile including various risk-related features associated with the cargo type, or dispensed particles. For example, the travel time 422 is a risk-related feature in that the risk of a trip may increase based on a longer travel time. Furthermore, a greater number of intersections 404 or turns 406 may indicate higher risk. The vehicle type 414 is also a risk-related feature. For example, a sturdy car is more resistant to damage, and thus less risky, than a less sturdy car. As another example, a car capable of higher speeds may be considered more risky than one that is not. Note that other risk-related features and combinations thereof may be determined as the set of risk-related features. Thus, Hayes teaches “determine a set of risk-related features associated with the dispensed particles along the link based at least on the set of vehicle features” as required by claim 1.
Regarding point (a)(iv), the Examiner’s position is that Hayes teaches “based on the set of risk-related features and the map data, determine a risk value for the link” (FIG. 3 and [0060], FIG. 4 and [0030-0046], [0062-0063], step 616 of FIG. 6 and [0083]). As for the map data, this includes at least a start location and an end location to determine routes, as supported in [0060] and [0062-0063], the routes having certain associated risk factors as exemplified in [0032-0046]. As for the risk-related features, Hayes discloses that a risk value is determined for each segment. As seen in step 310 of FIG. 3, and further supported in [0029], each segment along the route has a risk determined, the risk of which may be represented as a risk score, a dollar amount, or another representation. Examples of risk values having been determined for each segment, or link, can be seen in FIGS. 7A-H and [0090-0105]. Applicant’s claim merely denotes “a set of risk-related features associated with the dispensed particles along the link,” the association of which not is not detailed in such a way that would preclude the teachings of Hayes. Paragraphs [0036-0037] of Hayes detail some examples of how a risk factor may include cargo type 412, or dispensed particles, the risk factor included in the risk calculation as supported in at least [0030-0031]. Thus, Hayes teaches “based on the set of risk-related features and the map data, determine a risk value for the link’”.
In conclusion, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Therefore, independent claim 1, and similarly independent claims 11 and 19, are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayes et al. (US 2018/0059687 A1). The dependent claims accordingly remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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, MATTHEW ELL can be reached on (571)270-3264. 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