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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is a Non-Final Action for Request for Continued Examination (RCE) application Serial No. 18/028,938. Claim(s) 1-18 and 20 have been examined and fully considered, and are pending in Instant Application.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10, 13, and 20 are amended. Claim 19 was previously cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are persuasive regarding the claim rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101, therefore, rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kaur et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0211529).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 10-11, 13, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaur et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0211529), hereinafter, referred to as “Kaur” in view of Zepeng Mao (CN-102663890-A; the NPL citations are based on the provided English Translation; previously recorded) hereinafter, referred to as “Zepeng Mao”, and in view of Lerner (Patent No .: US 11,263,901; previously recorded); and in view of Madigan et al (Pub. No. : US 2018/0059669), hereinafter, referred to as “Madigan”.
Regarding [claim 1], Kaur discloses a processing apparatus (“processor 400”) for traffic management of a network of roads (see, Paragraph [0012]: “FIG . 1 is a block diagram illustrating a traffic management system 102 that may communicate with a network 104”), comprising a processor (“processor 202”) and a memory (“a machine - readable medium 203”), the processing apparatus being configured, under control of the processor to execute instructions in the memory (see, Abstract; at least Paragraphs [0012], [0014] and [0017]) to:
receive, from one or more communication devices of road users, geolocation transmissions data via a Global Positioning System (GPS) (see, Paragraph [0021]: “a flock of vehicles is defined by instructions 210 performing a cluster analysis based on the presence information and relative positions of connected vehicles and non-connected vehicles extrapolated by instructions 208 ( and additionally or alternatively, data received at instructions 206, such as GPS data)” and [0047]);
As Kaur mentions generate, based on journey data sets derived from the received geolocation transmissions data (see, Paragraph [0031]: “As another example of providing a travel recommendation, in response to certain traffic patterns, instructions 318 may recommend to the particular connected vehicle an alternate route or routes to the vehicle's destination (e.g., a destination entered in the vehicle's GPS), the alternate route(s) meeting one or more of the vehicle operator's preferences, such as a preference for traffic density, a preference for free flowing traffic over stop-start traffic, a preference between travel time and travel distance, and the like. Such preferences may be provided by vehicle operators to the traffic management system 300 (and stored in a data storage thereof), in a manner similar to that described above with respect to traffic management system 102”)…
Additionally, Mao teaches
each journey data set comprising data indicative of a journey by a road user that comprises traversing an intersection node of the network of roads, in one or more data records (see at least Paragraphs [0032]-[0035] and [0037]),
first count data indicative of a first count of the road users travelling on an incoming road leading to the intersection node (see at least Paragraphs [0032]-[0035] and [0037]), and
second count data indicative of a second count of the road users travelling on an outgoing road of at least two outgoing roads, each outgoing road leading away from the intersection node, wherein the incoming road and the at least two outgoing roads intersect at the intersection node (see at least Paragraphs [0033]-[0035] and [0037]);
generate, in the one or more data records, result data indicative of a result that is determined based on the first count and the second count (see at least Paragraphs [0033]-[0035] and [0037]);
*** Examiner notes that the cited paragraphs of Mao indicates determining a road restriction at intersection using probe vehicle data by a road ratio by counting the outbound link of an intersection to the number of GPS data matched on the inbound link***
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further steps of: establishing a road network topology,, generating a candidate left-turning intersection in the road network topology as taught Mao and combining traffic management of a network of roads as taught by Kunar. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey the urban road intersection traffic limitation information is automatically and accurately extracted (see, Abstract).
However, Lerner teaches
….
determine that the result satisfies a condition for restriction and based on the determination, generate, in the one or more data records, restriction data indicative of a restriction of traffic from the incoming road to the outgoing road of the at least two outgoing roads via the intersection node; and (see, columns 8-9 “At operation 508, the cloud server 122 receives connected vehicle data indicative of traffic conditions. For instance, the cloud server 122 may receive data from a plurality of vehicles 102 with respect to traffic information for an intersection having a plurality of legs, the intersection being controlled by a traffic control having a cycle for each leg including phases of prohibiting traffic to proceed, allowing traffic to proceed, and warning traffic that the cycle is changing from allowing traffic to proceed to prohibiting traffic to proceed.”; and “At operation 510, the cloud server 122 identifies factors from the connected vehicle data indicative of intersection performance. These factors may include, for example, a number of vehicles that are travelling upstream of the intersection and are required to stop when the traffic light changes phase, a number of vehicles that travel in a perpendicular direction to the intersection when a traffic light of the intersection is red in a vehicle travel direction, number of vehicles that accelerate to travel through the traffic light before the traffic light changes phase, and number of vehicles that brake to stop in advance of the intersection.”; also, see col. 9. “At operation 514, the cloud server 122 determines whether the intersection is below a threshold score. For instance, the cloud server 122 may compare the score determined at operation 512 with a minimum intersection score below which adjustment of the cycle may be desired. In another example, the cloud server 122 may determine the lowest scored intersections as determined at operation 512 (e.g., the bottom N scores, the bottom MN of scores, etc.). At operation 516, an alert may be presented of those indicated intersections. This alert may, for example, suggest the additional placement of sensors or other active technologies to mitigate cycle issues. Or, the alert may indicate that a change in light cycle, e.g., according to the learned weights, may provide for a better result. Accordingly, the cloud server 122 may indicate, based on the score, whether the intersection is a candidate for adjustment of the cycle. At operation 518, the intersection cycle(s) are accepted as adequate.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify processing apparatus for traffic management of a network of roads as taught by Kaur in view of Mao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to use of vehicles as a sensing platform for traffic light phase timing effectiveness.
Additionally, Madigan teaches
…
generate, based on an angular relationship between the outgoing road and the incoming road, in the one or more data records, type data indicative of a type of the restriction;
determine whether the type of restriction is applicable to a type of vehicle based on data derived from the geolocation transmissions data associated with the type of vehicle and
display, on a user interface of the one or more communication devices of the road users, an alert in accordance with the type of the restriction and the type of the vehicle to the road users to re-route facilitating traffic management
(see, Abstract; Paragraphs [0030], “FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating various example components of a vehicle and infrastructure control system 100 according to one or more aspects of the disclosure. The vehicle and infrastructure control system 100 may include a vehicle 110, other vehicles (not illustrated in FIG. 1), one or more traffic devices (e.g., traffic or roadway infrastructure devices) in a traffic device network or system 120, one or more mobile devices 130 (e.g., a mobile device of a pedestrian or a bicyclist), one or more bicycles 135, one or more buildings 125, one or more weather data source 140, one or more event data source 145, one or more map data source 170, one or more historical driver or vehicle data source 175, one or more historical traffic or infrastructure data source 180, one or more broadcast and/or emergency receiver 185, a vehicle and infrastructure control server 150, and additional related components. Each component of the vehicle and infrastructure control system 100 may include a computing device (or system) having some or all of the following structural components.”;
[0047]: “The types of vehicle data transmitted by the vehicle 110 may depend on the protocols and standards used for the V2V communication, the range of communications, whether to initiate vehicle and infrastructure control, and other factors. In certain examples, the vehicle 110 may periodically broadcast corresponding sets of similar vehicle driving data, such as the location (which may include an absolute location in GPS coordinates or other coordinate systems, and/or a relative location with respect to another vehicle or a fixed point ), speed, and direction of travel. In certain examples, the nodes in a V2V communication system (e . g ., vehicles and other reception devices ) may use internal clocks with synchronized time signals , and may send trans mission times within V2V communications, so that the receiver may calculate its distance from the transmitting node based on the difference between the transmission time and the reception time”;
[0101]: “The navigation route may comprise a plurality of intersections. In step 520, the computing device may determine a plurality of potential maneuvers at one or more of the intersections. In step 525, the computing device may analyze each maneuver through an intersection, and generate a navigation score for each of those maneuvers. The navigation scores may be based on one or more factors described herein. For example, the navigation score (e.g., a cost, such as an insurance cost) of turning left at an intersection may be X, whereas the navigation score (e.g., a cost) of making three right turns to achieve the same goal may be Y. In some aspects, X may be lower than Y (e.g., the single left turn is cheaper, safer, and/or faster), and in other aspects, Y may be lower than X (e.g., the three right turns is cheaper, safer, and/or faster). That is, the computing device may determine whether to recommend a left turn or three right turns to the driver for one or more intersections, based on the risk score of the intersection.(*** Examiner interprets as outgoing road and the incoming road, in the one or more data records, type data indicative of a type of the restriction ***) Going straight through the intersection may also have a navigation score assigned to it. Another type of maneuver may be a U turn at the intersection. In step 530, the navigation scores may be analyzed by the computing device and used to provide one or more proposed maneuvers (and consequently routes) to the driver. For example, the computing device may wirelessly transmit a selected maneuver to a navigation application running on the mobile device or the vehicle's system. In some aspects, the navigation scores may be used by a routing application to generate a driving route.”
[0102]: “Driver preferences may be included in determining risk scores and/or recommended navigation routes. A driver may prefer particular types of intersections or maneuvers. For example, the driver might not desire to perform certain maneuvers, such as left turns or U turns. Drivers may also prefer to drive below certain speeds, such as 40 MPH. Preferences may be based on how long the driver has been driving, such that more complex maneuvers may be less desired than simpler maneuvers. The driver may provide these preferences to the computing device (e.g., by inputting preferences into the mobile device 116, vehicle 110, or other computing device), and the computing device may factor in these preferences to determine whether to recommend a particular path or maneuver. For example, the computing device might not recommend a navigation path that includes a highway if the driver desires to stay below 40 MPH, or may recommend three right turns instead of a left turn if the driver does not desire to make a left turn.”;
[0104]: “Some intersections or other segments of road might not permit certain types of vehicles , such as autonomous vehicles. If the computing device determines that the vehicle to be navigated is an autonomous vehicle, the computing device may avoid these intersections that do not permit autonomous vehicles. That is, the computing device may reroute the autonomous vehicle through a different intersection. In some aspects , these intersections may permit autonomous vehicles , but driving autonomous vehicles through these intersections may be dangerous . One or more of the factors used to determine scores for maneuvers at intersections may include a level of autonomy of the vehicle (e. g., manual, semi-autonomous, fully autonomous , the number of autonomous features of the vehicle, etc.). Accordingly , the computing device may determine the navigation score for each potential maneuver based on the level of autonomy of the vehicle. The computing device may increase the risk score accordingly to disincentivize a route that includes one or more of these intersections”;
[0105]: “Based on recommended routes, the computing device may send instructions to the vehicle to switch between autonomous mode and non-autonomous mode. For example, if the vehicle will be traveling through an intersection that prohibits autonomous vehicles or that is dangerous for autonomous vehicles, the computing device may instruct the vehicle to switch to non-autonomous mode. The computing device may activate or deactivate (e.g., turn on or off) individual autonomous vehicle features. For example, the computing device may receive, from a vehicle or mobile device, data indicating that the vehicle is approaching an intersection. In response to receiving the data indicating that the vehicle is approaching the first intersection, the computing device may send, to the vehicle, an instruction to deactivate one or more of its autonomous features. Moreover, the type of maneuver through the intersection may be determined based on whether the vehicle is autonomous or not. For example, the computing device may instruct non-autonomous vehicles to make a left turn through a certain intersection, and may instruct autonomous vehicles to make right turns and/or to go straight through the intersection. The computing device may also send the selected maneuver to the autonomous vehicle. One maneuver may be recommended if the vehicle is autonomous, while another maneuver may be recommended if the vehicle is not autonomous. In some aspects, vehicles and/or mobile devices with vehicles may have the ability to detect the type of intersection (e.g., smart intersection or standard intersection), and may send data indicating the type of intersection to the vehicle and infrastructure control server 150 and/or another central repository.”
*** Examiner notes that cited paragraphs discloses the scope of claim, where Madigan teaches maneuvering through restricted intersection based type vehicle (***not permit certain types of vehicles***) and re-route displaying, that data/information the road users to re-route***
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to implement an electrical data processing system for determining the status of a traffic device and vehicle movement , monitoring or affecting movement of a vehicle using a traffic device, and/or determining a navigation route based on the location of a vehicle and/or generating a recommendation for a vehicle maneuver as taught by Madigan. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey conditions for these individuals may be made even safer using certain traffic infrastructure , vehicle capabilities , and mobile device capabilities , many of which currently are not being utilized (see, Paragraph [0002]).
As to [claim 2], the combination of Kaur, Mao, Lerner and Madigan teaches the processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Mao discloses wherein, for generating the result data, the processing apparatus is configured to generate the result data indicative of the result that is determined based on a ratio defined by the second count to the first count, and wherein the result satisfies the condition for restriction when it is determined that the result is less than a defined threshold. (see at least Abstract; and Paragraphs [0034]-[0035] and [0041] “When the F value is greater than 0 and less than a set threshold, and count(ID, Link, ε, T) is greater than another set threshold (when the original floating car data is data within a period of one month, it is recommended that the thresholds of F value and count (ID, Link, ε, T) be 1% and 100 respectively), it is considered that there is a no-left-turn restriction at this intersection, and the intersections with no-left-turn restrictions are extracted by time period. This is because no-left-turn restrictions are usually subject to time period restrictions, so they need to be extracted by time period”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify processing apparatus for traffic management of a network of roads as taught by Kaur, Mao, and Madigan with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to use of vehicles as a sensing platform for traffic light phase timing effectiveness.
As to [claim 4], the combination of Kaur, Mao, Lerner and Madigan teaches the processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Mao teaches wherein, starting from the incoming road to the outgoing road in an anti-clockwise direction, in the case that the angular relationship between the outgoing road and the incoming road is determined to comprise an angle in a first range between 80º to 100º operating the processing apparatus to generate the type data indicative of a no-right turn restriction; and
PNG
media_image1.png
9
6
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in the case that the angular relationship between the outgoing road and the incoming road is determined to comprise an angle in a second range of between 255º to 285º, operating the processing apparatus to generate the type data indicative of a no-left turn restriction (see at least Paragraphs [0021]-[0028] and [0041]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further steps of: establishing a road network topology,, generating a candidate left-turning intersection in the road network topology as taught Mao and combining traffic management of a network of roads as taught by Kaur. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey the urban road intersection traffic limitation information is automatically and accurately extracted (see, Abstract).
As to [claim 7], the combination of Kaur, Mao, Lerner and Madigan teaches the processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Mao teaches further configured to add the restriction data and the type data to data corresponding to the network of roads (see at least Paragraphs [0030]: “At the same time, if the intersection is indeed a restricted intersection, the program will return duplicate results, which will affect the accuracy. This process is called deduplication. Specifically, it can be determined whether two intersections are duplicates based on whether their inbound and outbound paths are completely identical. For duplicate intersections, only one intersection needs to be retained”; and [0031]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further steps of: establishing a road network topology,, generating a candidate left-turning intersection in the road network topology as taught Mao and combining traffic management of a network of roads as taught by Kaur. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey the urban road intersection traffic limitation information is automatically and accurately extracted (see, Abstract).
Regrading [claim 10], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 1 therefore claim 10 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Regrading [claim 11], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 2 therefore claim 11 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Regrading [claim 13], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 4 therefore claim 13 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Regrading [claim 16], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 7 therefore claim 16 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Regrading [claim 20], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 1 therefore claim 20 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Claim(s) 3, 8-9, 12 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaur, Mao, Lerner and Madigan and in view of Herlocker et al. (Patent No.: US 10,008,110 Bl; previously recorded), hereinafter, referred to as “Herlocker”.
As to [claim 3], the combination of Kaur, Mao, Lerner and Madigan teaches the processing apparatus as claimed in claim 2. As Mao teaches wherein, for generating the restriction data (see at least Paragraph [0042]: “the existing manual means of discovering traffic restriction information into automatic discovery, and conducts in-depth research and verification on the traffic restriction intersection discovery model, realizing the use of automated methods to supplement and guide manual information collection”), however, Kaur, Mao, or Lerner does not explicitly discloses the processing apparatus is configured to generate the restriction data when it is determined that the result satisfies the condition for restriction and that the second count is less than another defined threshold.
However, Herlocker teaches
… the processing apparatus is configured to generate the restriction data when it is determined that the result satisfies the condition for restriction and that the second count is less than another defined threshold (see at least col. 8 “turn restriction detection instructions 115 are programmed or configured to perform determining whether thresholds were satisfied. The thresholds may be set to any amount, and may be established for any purpose. For example, if an electronic map indicates that a left turn is restricted from a particular approach to an intersection, the threshold may be set to twenty percent of traces associated with that approach. Then, the threshold is satisfied when more than twenty percent of traces associated with that approach include a left turn. This would indicate that the left turn restriction may be incorrect.”; see at least col. 9 “if an electronic map indicates that a right turn is allowed at a particular approach to an intersection, the threshold may also be set to a low amount, such as ten percent. However, the threshold in this example is satisfied when the amount of right turns is below ten percent, which may indicate that a right turn is restricted at this intersection from the associated approach”; and col. 11 “The depending on the specific intersection and approach, a threshold may be satisfied when the threshold is exceed or when the threshold is not met. For example, if a turn restriction is preexisting in the electronic map for an intersection, then the threshold may be satisfied when a threshold is exceeded. Conversely, if there is no preexisting turn restriction in the electronic map for an intersection, then the threshold may be satisfied when the amount of turns made is below the threshold amount. The thresholds may be set to any amount, based on any factors”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention by incorporating the processing apparatus is configured to generate the restriction data if the result satisfies the condition for restriction as taught by Herlocker, and by combining Mao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey this using this process, the accuracy of electronic maps can be greatly improved. Specifically, turn restrictions may be added, removed, or modified for an electronic map based on data collected from actual trips taken in vehicles in the real world (see at least col. 11).
As to [claim 8], the combination of Kaur, Mao, Lerner and Madigan teaches the processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Neither Kaur, Mao and Lerner explicitly teaches further configured to, in response to a request from a user to access data associated with the intersection node, communicate the restriction data and the type data to a device of the user for communicating the restriction and the type of the restriction to the user.
However, Herlocker teaches
further configured to, in response to a request from a user to access data associated with the intersection node, communicate the restriction data and the type data to a device of the user for communicating the restriction and the type of the restriction to the user (see at least col. 8. “turn restriction detection instructions 115 are programmed or configured to perform searches on map data using a segment of a trace to identify which portion of a map, such as a specific intersection or approach, the trace is associated with. Specifically, the searches are performed on R-trees, and are used to identify which intersection or approach a trace is associated with. "Trees," in this context, refer to digitally stored data structures comprising nodes that are connected by branches to other nodes” and col. 10. “The bounding boxes searched may represent any set of bounding boxes, such as all bounding boxes within an electronic map or a section of an electronic map. The bounding boxes may be searched using a tree. The tree may be any suitable tree, such as an R-tree. An R-tree is a data structure that is used to index multidimensional information, such as geographical coordinates. The tree may be generated in advance, or may be generated in response to a request to perform turn restriction detection”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify Kaur, Mao, and Madigan by combining in response to a request from a user to accessing data as taught by Herlocker, and by combining Mao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey this using this process, the accuracy of electronic maps can be greatly improved. Specifically, turn restrictions may be added, removed, or modified for an electronic map based on data collected from actual trips taken in vehicles in the real world (see at least col. 11).
As to [claim 9], the combination of Kaur, Mao, Lerner and Madigan discloses the processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1. As Kaur teaches (see, Paragraph [0012]: “the connected vehicles 106-1 through 106-N may communicate with the traffic management system 102 through an opt-in permission-based scheme. In further implementations, operators of the connected vehicles 106-1 through 106-N may interact with the traffic management system 102 (through, for example, a user interface of the connected vehicle or through a network-connected electronic device such as a smartphone or a computer) to select or restrict the types of data to transmit to and/or receive from the traffic management system 102 and to provide travel preferences to the traffic management system 102 such as a preferred traffic density, a preferred road type ( e.g., highway, local road, toll-road), a preference for smooth-flowing traffic over stop-and-start traffic, vendor preferences (e.g., fuel stations, restaurants, etc.), and other preferences”.), teaches the restriction data and the type data for communicating information corresponding to the restriction and the type of the restriction with the digital map.
However, Herlocker further teaches
further configured to process data indicative of a digital map representative of the network of roads (see at least col. “The electronic map may utilize a normalized road network. In a normalized road network, the roads are referred to as edges and intersections where roads meet are referred to as nodes. Further, the normalized road network is electronically modified such that edges are split whenever a node is shared with another edge. Additionally, edges are merged when less than three edges share a single node. "Road," in this context, refers to any mapped path that is represented in the digitally stored electronic map data”), the restriction data (see at least col.3. “Subsequent actions may be taken based on the notifications, such as a closer review of the data, or a modification of the turn restriction data for the intersection. The modification may include, for example: adding a turn restriction, removing a turn restriction, or modifying a turn restriction”) and the type data for communicating information corresponding to the restriction and the type of the restriction with the digital map (see at least col. 5 “electronic map data 130 is digital map data that is provided, either directly or indirectly, to client map applications, such as client map application 155, using an API. Electronic map data 130 is based on electronic map source data 125. Specifically, electronic map source data 125 is processed and organized as a plurality of vector tiles which may be subject to style data to impose different display styles. Electronic map data 130 may be updated at any suitable interval, and may include additional information beyond that derived from electronic map source data 125. For example, using aggregated telemetry data 140, discussed below, various additional information may be stored in the vector tiles, such as traffic patterns, turn restrictions, detours, common or popular routes, speed limits, new streets, and any other information related to electronic maps or the use of electronic maps”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention by incorporating process data indicative of a digital map representative of the network of roads and the type of the restriction with the digital map as taught by Herlocker, and by combining Mao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey Using this process, the accuracy of electronic maps can be greatly improved. Specifically, turn restrictions may be added, removed, or modified for an electronic map based on data collected from actual trips taken in vehicles in the real world (see at least col. 11).
Regrading [claim 12], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 3 therefore claim 12 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Regrading [claim 17], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 8 therefore claim 17 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Regrading [claim 18], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 9 therefore claim 18 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaur, Mao Lerner, Madigan and in view of Mikuriya et al. (Pub. No.: US2008/0091344; previously recorded), hereinafter, referred to as “Mikuriya”.
As to [claim 5], the Kunar, Mao, Lerner and Madigan teaches the processing apparatus as claimed in claim 4. Mao mention wherein, starting from the incoming road to the outgoing road in an anti-clockwise direction in the case that the angular relationship between the outgoing road and the incoming road is determined to comprise an angle outside of the first range and the second range (see at least Paragraphs [0024]: “the angle of a certain road link is defined as: the angle between the road link and the true north direction, ranging from 0° to 360°. When the angle between the incoming link and the outgoing link meets certain conditions, a left turn is formed” and [0029]: “Therefore, it is necessary to expand the incoming and outgoing links of the selected left-turn intersection, find the predecessor link and successor link with the smallest angle with the incoming and outgoing links of this intersection, and add this link to the incoming and outgoing links of the intersection, and continue to expand the intersection so that the sum of the lengths of the incoming and outgoing links of each intersection is no less than 150 meters”), however, Mao or does not explicitly disclose the processing apparatus to generate the type data indicative of a no-entry restriction.
However, Mikuriya teaches
…the processing apparatus to generate the type data indicative of a no-entry restriction (see at least Paragraph [0077]: “information for managing link record such as a "link record size" representing the data size of the link record; "the number of interpolation point records" representing the number of shape records constituting the link shape information; "the number of restriction records" constituting the traffic restriction information; "link identifying information" representing the link identifier of the link; and "link attribute information" representing various attributes such as link types indicating characteristics on the road structure like the road width of the link, the number of lanes, one-way traffic restrictions and a separate/inseparate state of up and down lanes, boundary information designating whether the link starting point side abuts on a boundary of an area represented by the road network data, and guidance presence/absence information indicating the presence or absence of the guidance information about the starting node” and [0081]: “The traffic restriction record consists of an "entrance side identical node identifier" representing the identical node identifier of the starting node of the entrance link; "entrance direction indication information" designating whether the entrance direction to the node the entrance side identical node identifier designates is in the same or opposite direction to the direction of the link string including the node the identical node identifier designates; an "exit side identical node identifier" indicating the identical node identifier of the starting node of the exit link; "exit direction indication information" designating whether the exit direction from the node the exit side identical node identifier designates is in the same or opposite direction to the direction of the link string including the node the identical node identifier designates; and "traffic restriction code" representing traffic restriction contents from the entrance link to the exit link”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to the processing apparatus to generate the type data indicative of a no-entry restriction in view of Mikuriya, and by combining Kaur, Mao, Lerner and Madigan with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to can reduce the amount of data for instructing the update and carry out the update processing simply and quickly when a road or intersection is added or eliminated.
As to [claim 6], the combination of Kaur, Mao, Lerner and Madigan teaches the processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Neither Kaur, Mao or Lerner explicitly disclose further configured to generate data indicative of the outgoing road being a dead-end road in the case that a degree of an end node associated with the outgoing road is determined to be one.
However, , Mikuriya teaches
to generate data indicative of the outgoing road being a dead-end road in the case that a degree of an end node associated with the outgoing road is determined to be one (see at least Paragraph [0077]: “information for managing link record such as a "link record size" representing the data size of the link record; "the number of interpolation point records" representing the number of shape records constituting the link shape information; "the number of restriction records" constituting the traffic restriction information; "link identifying information" representing the link identifier of the link; and "link attribute information" representing various attributes such as link types indicating characteristics on the road structure like the road width of the link, the number of lanes, one-way traffic restrictions and a separate/inseparate state of up and down lanes, boundary information designating whether the link starting point side abuts on a boundary of an area represented by the road network data, and guidance presence/absence information indicating the presence or absence of the guidance information about the starting node” and [0081]: “The traffic restriction record consists of an "entrance side identical node identifier" representing the identical node identifier of the starting node of the entrance link; "entrance direction indication information" designating whether the entrance direction to the node the entrance side identical node identifier designates is in the same or opposite direction to the direction of the link string including the node the identical node identifier designates; an "exit side identical node identifier" indicating the identical node identifier of the starting node of the exit link; "exit direction indication information" designating whether the exit direction from the node the exit side identical node identifier designates is in the same or opposite direction to the direction of the link string including the node the identical node identifier designates; and "traffic restriction code" representing traffic restriction contents from the entrance link to the exit link”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention by incorporating data indicative of the outgoing road being a dead-end road in view of Mikuriya, and by combining Kaur, Mao and Madigan with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to can reduce the amount of data for instructing the update and carry out the update processing simply and quickly when a road or intersection is added or eliminated.
Regrading [claim 14], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 5 therefore claim 14
would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Regrading [claim 15], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 6 therefore claim 15 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAKARI UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-8462. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 TO 4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/B.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights