Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This FINAL action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 17 September 2025. Claims 1-41 and 69-75 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claims 42-68 are cancelled. Claims 69-75 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Objections to claims 1, 2, 9, 35, 40 and 41 and rejection of claims 36 and 37 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 17 April 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Objections to claims 1, 2, 9, 35, 40 and 41 and rejection of claims 36 and 37 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 17 April 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Objections to claim 13 as set forth in the office action of 17 April 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Applicant has not amended claim 13 accordingly. See Claim Objections below.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-41 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 17 April 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. The limitations “process the plurality of indicators of speed to identify at least one indicator of speed from the plurality of indicators of speed that meets an exclusion criterion; modify the plurality of indicators of speed to exclude the at least one of the plurality of indicators of speed; determine, based on the modified plurality of indicators of speed, at least one aggregated common speed profile for the road segment” are a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of mental process as they recite an abstract idea which is directed to mental process. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at data collected/received and determining information from the collected/received data. To be more specific to the claim, a person can look at the received drive information that are collected from two or more vehicles that traversed a road segment, analyze the received drive information including two or more indicators of speed in order to identify/determine at least one indicator of speed that should be ignored based on a criteria the person is following, once identified, the person can ignore (e.g. not consider) the identified at least one indicator of speed that met the criteria and only consider the remaining indicator(s) of speed when determining one or more common speed profiles for the road segment. So a person can look at five indicators of speed for a road segment collected/received from five vehicles, analyze them and realize one of them seems to be abnormal and/or unrelated and therefore ignore the one and instead just use the remaining four indicators of speed to obtain a common speed profile for the road segment by using statistical means, etc. The Examiner notes that under 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). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person looking at the received data could process, modify and determine data/information therefrom, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The additional limitations of “receive drive information collected from a plurality of vehicles that traversed the road segment, wherein the drive information a plurality of indicators of speed, wherein each of the plurality of indicators of speed was collected by one of the plurality of vehicles during a drive traversing the road segment; ... store the at least one aggregated common speed profile in an autonomous vehicle road navigation model associated with the road segment” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving data and storing information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “distribute the autonomous vehicle road navigation model to one or more autonomous vehicles for use in navigating along the road segment” is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general transmission of information/data based on the results of the determining steps) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements do not define the use of mental process concepts in such a manner that sufficiently limits the use of mental process into any practical application. The “A system for collecting and distributing navigation information relative to a road segment, the system comprising: at least one processor programmed to: ..." (claim 1), “A non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method for collecting and distributing navigation information relative to a road segment, the method comprising: ...” (claims 40 and 41) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the steps. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed in a device does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, amount to no more mere data gathering steps (which is a form of extra-solution activity) and insignificant extra-solution activity and/or mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the steps are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. 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 performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). See 35 USC 101 below for further clarification/details.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-41 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 17 April 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Applicant argues that Adamson does not disclose “processing the plurality of indicators of speed to identify at least one indicator of speed from the plurality of indicators of speed that meets an exclusion criterion; modifying the plurality of indicators of speed to exclude the at least one of the plurality of indicators of speed; determining, based on the modified plurality of indicators of speed, at least one aggregated common speed profile for the road segment”. Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Examiner points to at least [0037] and [0182] of Adamson which teaches receiving probe data representing instantaneous speeds of a plurality of vehicles under various/all conditions (plurality of indicators of speed), then to determine/obtain a speed distribution profile for the road segment relevant to a particular condition (aggregated common speed profile), probe data may be selected in accordance with certain criteria (so from the plurality of indicators of speed, a subset of probe data are selected that meet an inclusion criterion, therefore the remainder subset of the plurality of indicators of speed are unselected, excluded as part of the selection, since they don’t meet the inclusion criterion thereby instead meeting an exclusion criterion). See 35 USC 103 below.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Specification does not use the terms “exclusion criterion” and “upper speed threshold” in paragraphs [0421]-[0424] of as-filed specification which correspond to the amended/new limitations (e.g. Examiner understands “exclusion criterion”, under broadest reasonable interpretation, to be any one of the various reasonings/criteria used to [filter out]/[exclude] speed value(s) in paragraphs [0421]-[0424] and Examiner understands “upper speed threshold”, under broadest reasonable interpretation, to be any one of speed [values] of other vehicles, any reference speed, speed limit, normal speed range, average speed value, etc).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 40 and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1, 40 and 41 should be amended to recite “the at least one indicator of speed . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 13 should be amended to recite “[[a]] the particular location ...” since such limitation is previously recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 20-22 recites “wherein drive information associated with congested drives is excluded from the determination of the at least one aggregated common speed profile” (claim 20), “wherein drive information associated with poor weather conditions is excluded from the determination of the at least one aggregated common speed profile” (claim 21) and “wherein drive information associated with nighttime driving is excluded from the determination of the at least one aggregated common speed profile” (claim 22). The connection, or lack thereof, between the limitations of claims 20-22 and the amended/new limitations of claim 1 is unclear, to the Examiner, (e.g. the modifying to exclude using the exclusion criterion, under broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of paragraphs [0421]-[0424] of as-filed specification which correspond to the amended/new limitations, appear related to the limitations of claims 20-22).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-41 and 69-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system, claim 40 is directed to a method and claim 41 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, claims 1, 40 and 41 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 40 and 41 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A system for collecting and distributing navigation information relative to a road segment, the system comprising:
at least one processor programmed to:
receive drive information collected from a plurality of vehicles that traversed the road segment, wherein the drive information includes a plurality of indicators of speed, wherein each of the plurality of indicators of speed was collected by one of the plurality of vehicles during a drive traversing the road segment;
process the plurality of indicators of speed to identify at least one indicator of speed from the plurality of indicators of speed that meets an exclusion criterion;
modify the plurality of indicators of speed to exclude the at least one of the plurality of indicators of speed;
determine, based on the modified plurality of indicators of speed, at least one aggregated common speed profile for the road segment;
store the at least one aggregated common speed profile in an autonomous vehicle road navigation model associated with the road segment; and
distribute the autonomous vehicle road navigation model to one or more autonomous vehicles for use in navigating along the road segment
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, processing the indicators to identify one indicator, modifying the indicators to exclude the one indicator and determining aggregated common speed profile(s) in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under 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). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system for collecting and distributing navigation information relative to a road segment, the system comprising:
at least one processor programmed to:
receive drive information collected from a plurality of vehicles that traversed the road segment, wherein the drive information includes a plurality of indicators of speed, wherein each of the plurality of indicators of speed was collected by one of the plurality of vehicles during a drive traversing the road segment;
process the plurality of indicators of speed to identify at least one indicator of speed from the plurality of indicators of speed that meets an exclusion criterion;
modify the plurality of indicators of speed to exclude the at least one of the plurality of indicators of speed;
determine, based on the modified plurality of indicators of speed, at least one aggregated common speed profile for the road segment;
store the at least one aggregated common speed profile in an autonomous vehicle road navigation model associated with the road segment; and
distribute the autonomous vehicle road navigation model to one or more autonomous vehicles for use in navigating along the road segment
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of receiving, storing and distributing, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and storing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and storing data for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The distributing step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of providing and transmitting data from some of the previous steps), and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1, 40 and 41 further recite the “A system for collecting and distributing navigation information relative to a road segment, the system comprising: at least one processor programmed to: ...” (claim 1), “A method for collecting and distributing navigation information relative to a road segment, the method comprising: ...” (claim 40) and “A non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method for collecting and distributing navigation information relative to a road segment, the method comprising: ...” (claim 41) merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving and storing are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. 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. The additional limitation of distributing is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because 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 performance which in the instant application is distributing data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-39 and 69-75 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-39 and 69-75 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-41 and 69-75 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-22, 24, 26, 27, 29-41 and 71-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson (US20130226622A1) in view of Doron (WO2018175441A1).
Regarding claim 1, Adamson discloses a system for collecting and distributing navigation information relative to a road segment (see at least [0002]), the system comprising: at least one processor programmed to (see at least Figure 2 and Figure 3): receive drive information collected from a plurality of vehicles that traversed the road segment, wherein the drive information includes a plurality of indicators of speed, wherein each of the plurality of indicators of speed was collected by one of the plurality of vehicles during a drive traversing the road segment (see at least [0009], [0037], [0178] and [0201]); process the plurality of indicators of speed to identify at least one indicator of speed from the plurality of indicators of speed that meets an exclusion criterion (see at least [0012], [0037], [0039], [0040], [0178], [0183] and specifically [0182]); modify the plurality of indicators of speed to exclude the at least one of the plurality of indicators of speed (see at least [0012], [0037], [0039], [0040], [0178], [0183] and specifically [0182]); determine, based on the modified plurality of indicators of speed, at least one aggregated common speed profile for the road segment (see at least [0012], [0037], [0178], [0182], [0183] and [0201]); store the at least one aggregated common speed profile in a road navigation model associated with the road segment (see at least [0054], [0087], [0095]-[0097], [0099] and [0107]).
While Adamson discloses providing the road navigation model to one or more vehicles for use automatically in navigating along the road segment (see at least [0009], [0011], [0055], [0087], [0090], [0107], [0109], [0180]), Adamson does not explicitly disclose the road navigation model being an autonomous vehicle road navigation model and distribute the autonomous vehicle road navigation model to one or more autonomous vehicles for use in navigating along the road segment. However, Doron teaches the road navigation model being an autonomous vehicle road navigation model and distribute the autonomous vehicle road navigation model to one or more autonomous vehicles for use in navigating along the road segment (see at least [0278]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adamson to incorporate the teachings of Doron which teaches the road navigation model being an autonomous vehicle road navigation model and distribute the autonomous vehicle road navigation model to one or more autonomous vehicles for use in navigating along the road segment since they are both directed to vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Doron would increase utility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 2, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the drive information further includes location information for each of the plurality of vehicles (see at least Adamson [0035]).
Regarding claim 3, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the plurality of indicators of speed include an individual vehicle speed profile (see at least Adamson [0009], [0037], [0089], [0178], [0179] and [0201]).
Regarding claim 4, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the individual vehicle speed profile includes a plurality of speed values each associated with a position along the road segment (see at least Adamson [0009], [0037], [0089], [0178], [0179] and [0201]).
Regarding claim 5, Adamson does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of speed values are determined based on an output of a vehicle speedometer or a GPS unit. However, Doron teaches wherein the plurality of speed values are determined based on an output of a vehicle speedometer or a GPS unit (see at least [0215] and [0242]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adamson to incorporate the teachings of Doron which teaches wherein the plurality of speed values are determined based on an output of a vehicle speedometer or a GPS unit since they are both directed to vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Doron would increase accuracy of the overall system.
Regarding claim 6, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the at least one aggregated common speed profile includes a plurality of target speed values associated with respective position indicators stored in the autonomous vehicle road navigation model (see at least Adamson [0009], [0010], [0037], [0089], [0178], [0179] and [0201]).
Regarding claim 7, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the position indicators are spaced apart in the autonomous vehicle road navigation model by at least 5 meters and less than 100 meters (see at least Adamson [0017] and [0177]).
Regarding claim 8, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein each of the plurality of target speed values falls within a predetermined range of speeds associated with a crowdsourced speed profile for a particular location along the road segment (see at least Adamson [0010], [0012], [0031], [0032], [0077], [0089], [0188], [0179] and [0183]).
Regarding claim 9, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the predetermined range of speeds has a lower limit of between a 40th to60th percentile and an upper limit of between a 70th to 90th percentile of the crowdsourced speed profile for the particular location along the road segment (see at least Adamson [0010], [0012], [0031], [0032], [0077], [0089], [0188], [0179] and [0183]).
Regarding claim 10, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the at least one aggregated common speed profile includes a plurality of speed ranges associated with respective position indicators stored in the autonomous vehicle road navigation model (see at least Adamson [0010], [0012], [0031], [0032], [0077], [0089], [0188], [0179] and [0183]).
Regarding claim 11, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the position indicators are spaced apart in the autonomous vehicle road navigation model by at least 5 meters and less than 100 meters (see at least Adamson [0017] and [0177]).
Regarding claim 12, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein each of the plurality of speed ranges corresponds to a predetermined range of speeds associated with a crowdsourced speed profile for a particular location along the road segment (see at least Adamson [0010], [0012], [0031], [0032], [0077], [0089], [0188], [0179] and [0183]).
Regarding claim 13, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the predetermined range of speeds has a lower limit of between a 40thto60th percentile and an upper limit of between a 70th to 90th percentile of the crowdsourced speed profile for a particular location along the road segment (see at least Adamson [0010], [0012], [0031], [0032], [0077], [0089], [0188], [0179] and [0183]).
Regarding claim 14, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the at least one aggregated common speed profile includes a plurality of speed sub-profiles associated with respective position indicators stored in the autonomous vehicle road navigation model (see at least Adamson [0010], [0012], [0031]-[0033], [0077], [0089], [0188], [0179] and [0183]).
Regarding claim 15, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein each of the plurality of speed sub- profiles corresponds to a crowdsourced speed profile for a particular location along the road segment (see at least Adamson [0010], [0012], [0031]-[0033], [0077], [0089], [0188], [0179] and [0183]).
Regarding claim 16, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to generate a plurality of crowdsourced speed profiles for each location along the road segment, and wherein each of the crowdsourced speed profiles is associated with a different category of conditions during which the drive information from each of the plurality of vehicles was collected (see at least Adamson [0012], [0039], [0040], [0182] and [0183]).
Regarding claim 17, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the different categories of conditions include congested driving, poor weather driving, nighttime driving, uncongested driving, or fair weather driving (see at least Adamson [0012], [0039], [0040], [0182] and [0183]).
Regarding claim 18, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the at least one aggregated common speed profile includes a plurality of aggregated common speed profiles, wherein each of the plurality of aggregated common speed profiles is associated with a different category of conditions during which the drive information from each of the plurality of vehicles was collected (see at least Adamson [0012], [0039], [0040], [0182] and [0183]).
Regarding claim 19, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the different categories of conditions include congested driving, poor weather driving, nighttime driving, uncongested driving, or fair weather driving (see at least Adamson [0012], [0039], [0040], [0182] and [0183]).
Regarding claim 20, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein drive information associated with congested drives is excluded from the determination of the at least one aggregated common speed profile (see at least Adamson [0012], [0039], [0040], [0178], [0182] and [0183]).
Regarding claim 21, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein drive information associated with poor weather conditions is excluded from the determination of the at least one aggregated common speed profile (see at least Adamson [0012], [0039], [0040], [0178], [0182] and [0183]).
Regarding claim 22, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein drive information associated with nighttime driving is excluded from the determination of the at least one aggregated common speed profile (see at least Adamson [0012], [0039], [0040], [0178], [0182] and [0183]).
Regarding claim 24, Adamson does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one aggregated common speed profile is generated, at least in part, using a smoothing algorithm. However, Doron teaches wherein the at least one aggregated common speed profile is generated, at least in part, using a smoothing algorithm (see at least [0153], [0302] and [0366]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adamson to incorporate the teachings of Doron which teaches wherein the at least one aggregated common speed profile is generated, at least in part, using a smoothing algorithm since they are both directed to vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Doron would increase efficiency of the overall system.
Regarding claim 26, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the road segment includes at least one intersection, and the at least one aggregated common speed profile includes an aggregated common speed profile specific to the at least one intersection (see at least Adamson [0002] and [0020]).
Regarding claim 27, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the road segment includes at least one roundabout, and the at least one aggregated common speed profile includes an aggregated common speed profile specific to the at least one roundabout (see at least Adamson [0002], [0020] and [0026]).
Regarding claim 29, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the road segment includes at least one curve, and the at least one aggregated common speed profile includes an aggregated common speed profile specific to the at least one curve (see at least Adamson [0002] and [0009]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 30, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the drive information collected from the plurality of vehicles includes an indicator of a time of day during which the drive information was collected (see at least Adamson [0035]).
Regarding claim 31, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the drive information collected from the plurality of vehicles includes an indicator of a traffic congestion level experienced when the drive information was collected (see at least Adamson [0039] and [0178]).
Regarding claim 32, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the drive information collected from the plurality of vehicles includes an indicator of weather conditions level experienced when the drive information was collected (see at least Adamson [0005] and [0039]).
Regarding claim 33, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the drive information collected from the plurality of vehicles includes an indicator of road surface conditions experienced when the drive information was collected (see at least Adamson [0012], [0039] and [0040]).
Regarding claim 34, Adamson does not explicitly disclose wherein the drive information further includes an actual trajectory traveled by a vehicle as it traversed the road segment. However, Doron teaches wherein the drive information further includes an actual trajectory traveled by a vehicle as it traversed the road segment (see at least [0251], [0252], [0292] and [0293]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adamson to incorporate the teachings of Doron which teaches wherein the drive information further includes an actual trajectory traveled by a vehicle as it traversed the road segment since they are both directed to vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Doron would increase utility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 35, Adamson does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to determine and store in the autonomous vehicle road navigation model at least one target trajectory for the road segment based on aggregation of actual trajectories traversed by the plurality of vehicles along the road segment. However, Doron teaches wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to determine and store in the autonomous vehicle road navigation model at least one target trajectory for the road segment based on aggregation of actual trajectories traversed by the plurality of vehicles along the road segment (see at least [0251], [0252], [0292] and [0293]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adamson to incorporate the teachings of Doron which teaches wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to determine and store in the autonomous vehicle road navigation model at least one target trajectory for the road segment based on aggregation of actual trajectories traversed by the plurality of vehicles along the road segment since they are both directed to vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Doron would increase utility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 36, Adamson does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one target trajectory is stored as a three-dimensional spline. However, Doron teaches wherein the at least one target trajectory is stored as a three-dimensional spline (see at least [0218] and [0380]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adamson to incorporate the teachings of Doron which teaches wherein the at least one target trajectory is stored as a three-dimensional spline since they are both directed to vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Doron would increase utility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 37, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the drive information further includes a lane location on the road segment for each of the plurality of vehicles (see at least Adamson [0039]).
Regarding claim 38, Adamson does not explicitly disclose wherein the autonomous vehicle road navigation model further includes information identifying at least one landmark and its position along the road segment. However, Doron teaches wherein the autonomous vehicle road navigation model further includes information identifying at least one landmark and its position along the road segment (see at least [0281]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adamson to incorporate the teachings of Doron which teaches wherein the autonomous vehicle road navigation model further includes information identifying at least one landmark and its position along the road segment since they are both directed to vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Doron would increase utility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 39, Adamson does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one landmark includes at least one of a traffic sign, an arrow marking, a lane marking, a dashed lane marking, a traffic light, a stop line, a directional sign, a landmark beacon, or a lamppost. However, Doron teaches wherein the at least one landmark includes at least one of a traffic sign, an arrow marking, a lane marking, a dashed lane marking, a traffic light, a stop line, a directional sign, a landmark beacon, or a lamppost (see at least [0281]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adamson to incorporate the teachings of Doron which teaches wherein the at least one landmark includes at least one of a traffic sign, an arrow marking, a lane marking, a dashed lane marking, a traffic light, a stop line, a directional sign, a landmark beacon, or a lamppost since they are both directed to vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Doron would increase utility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 40, Adamson discloses a method for collecting and distributing navigation information relative to a road segment, the method comprising (see at least [0002]). The rest of claim 40 is commensurate in scope with claim 1. See above for rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 41, Adamson discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method for collecting and distributing navigation information relative to a road segment, the method comprising (see at least [0002] and [0109]). The rest of claim 41 is commensurate in scope with claim 1. See above for rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 71, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein the exclusion criterion is based on a characteristic of a vehicle that collected the at least one indicator of speed (see at least Adamson [0012], [0037], [0039], [0040], [0178], [0183] and specifically [0182]).
Regarding claims 72-75, claims 72-75 are commensurate in scope with claims 14, 15, 18 and 19, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 14, 15, 18 and 19.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson (US20130226622A1) in view of Doron (WO2018175441A1) in further view of Mieth (US20200064139A1) in yet further view of Kashiwase (US20180242128A1).
Regarding claim 23, Adamson as modified by Doron discloses wherein, in determining the at least one aggregated common speed profile, drive information associated with vehicles experiencing less congestion being favored more (see at least Adamson [0039] and [0178]). However, Adamson does not explicitly disclose wherein, in determining the at least one aggregated common speed profile, drive information associated with vehicles experiencing a closest-in-path-vehicle of less than 20 meters ahead or less than 1.5 seconds ahead is weighted less than drive information associated with vehicles not experiencing a closest-in-path-vehicle of less than 20 meters ahead or less than 1.5 seconds ahead.
Mieth teaches wherein, in determining the at least one aggregated common speed profile, drive information associated with vehicles experiencing congestion is weighted less than drive information associated with vehicles not experiencing congestion (see at least [0051], [0052], [0054], [0057] and [0110]-[0116]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adamson as modified by Doron to incorporate the teachings of Mieth which teaches wherein, in determining the at least one aggregated common speed profile, drive information associated with vehicles experiencing congestion is weighted less than drive information associated with vehicles not experiencing congestion since they are all directed to vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Mieth would increase the accuracy and reliability of the overall system.
Kashiwase teaches vehicles experiencing congestion being vehicles experiencing a closest-in-path-vehicle of less than a threshold distance ahead and vehicles not experiencing congestion being vehicles not experiencing a closest-in-path-vehicle of less than the threshold distance (see at least [0088]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adamson as modified by Doron and Mieth to incorporate the teachings of Kashiwase which teaches vehicles experiencing congestion being vehicles experiencing a closest-in-path-vehicle of less than a threshold distance ahead and vehicles not experiencing congestion being vehicles not experiencing a closest-in-path-vehicle of less than the threshold distance since they are all directed to vehicle navigation and incorporation of the teachings of Kashiwase would increase the accuracy and reliability of the overall system. Adamson as modified by Doron, Mieth and Kashiwase discloses the claimed invention except for the threshold distance being 20 meters. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the threshold distance be 20 meters, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson (US20130226622A1) in view of Doron (WO2018175441A1) in further view of Fowe (US20200286372A1).
Regarding claim 25, While Adamson discloses the at least one aggregated common speed profile includes a different aggregated common speed profile for lane traveled (see at least [0039]), Adamson as modified by Doron does not explicitly disclose wherein the road segment includes multiple lanes, and the at least one aggregated common speed profile includes a different aggregated common speed profile for each of the multiple lanes. However, Fowe teaches wherein the road segment includes multiple lanes, and the at least one aggregated common speed profile includes a different aggregated common speed profile for each of the multiple lanes (see at least [0059] and Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Adamson as modified by Doron to incorporate the teachings of Fowe which teaches wherein the road segment includes multiple