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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 3–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross (U.S. Patent No. 9,432,929) in view of Pedersen (EP 3 552 358 B1), and further in view of Stenneth (EP 2 911 410 A2).
Regarding Claim 1,
Disclosure by Ross
Ross discloses:
A management system of an autonomously movable work machine,
See at least: “A backend system is provided to send out and coordinate routes for a fleet of AVs within a given region based on...” (Col. 1, ll. 66–67)
Rationale: Ross discloses a backend management system (backend system) for a fleet of autonomously movable work machines (AVs).
the management system comprising processing circuitry,
See at least: “In one implementation, the computer system 1200 includes processing resources 1210... The computer system 1200 includes at least one processor 1210 for processing information stored in the main memory 1220...” (Col. 32, ll. 4–9)
Rationale: The backend system (management system) of Ross includes processors (processing circuitry) for executing management tasks.
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
See at least: “The processor 1210 is configured with software and/or other logic to perform one or more processes, steps and other functions described with implementations...” (Col. 2, ll. 1–2)
Rationale: The processors in Ross are configured via software logic to execute the functions of the system.
receive a work request;
See at least: “The backend system can receive pick-up requests from user devices executing a designated application to facilitate transportation for requesting users.” (Col. 2, ll. 1–4)
Rationale: The receipt of pick-up requests from users by the backend system discloses receiving a work request.
formulate an operation plan of the autonomously movable work machine based on the work request,
See at least: “For each pick-up request or trip, the backend system can perform an optimization operation to determine an optimal route for an AV to travel...” (Col. 2, ll. 7–10)
Rationale: Formulating an optimal route (operation plan) in response to a pick-up request (work request) discloses formulating an operation plan based on the work request.
the operation plan including a movement path of the autonomously movable work machine
See at least: “The backend system can instruct and send out AVs to service the pick-up requests... determine an optimal route for an AV to travel... utilize map data 343 and the network resource map 332 to determine a number of possible routes 367” (Col. 2, ll. 1–4; Col. 25, ll. 51–57)
Rationale: The optimization operation determines a route (movement path) which is included in the plan sent to the work machine.
in a working area of the autonomously movable work machine;
See at least: “The backend system 195 can utilize the location data 162 to, for example, manage routing of a fleet of AVs within a given region (e.g., a transportation arrangement service utilizing hundreds to thousands of AVS and spanning a city or a certain population).” (Col. 6, ll. 1–5)
Rationale: The region or city in which the fleet operates discloses a working area.
assign the work request to the work machine based on the operation plan;
See at least: “The backend system can instruct and send out AVs to service the pick-up requests... automatically send out AVs on the optimal default routes for pick-up requests...” (Col. 2, l. 58; Col. 3, ll. 15–18)
Rationale: Sending a machine to service a request along a determined route discloses assigning the work request to the machine based on the plan.
acquire wireless communication environment data on the movement path
See at least: “the AV tracking and updating system 500 can receive updated network data from the AVs 590 that indicate current network latency for any number of... network latency data 168 can be communicated from the AV 100 to the backend system 195...” (Col. 25, ll. 2–4; Col. 6, ll. 42–43)
Rationale: Ross discloses acquiring network latency and bandwidth data (wireless communication environment data) from the machines as they travel.
collected by the autonomously movable work machine;
See at least: “AVs 590 being sent out and traveling throughout the given region can provide updates 568 to the network data 521, such as network latency updates 569 and cost updates 562. ... AV3 593 can provide the updated latency data...” (Col. 18, ll. 33–45)
Rationale: Ross explicitly teaches that the work machines (AVs) collect the network environment data and transmit it back to the system.
and create a wireless communication environment map of the working area
See at least: “The network resource maps 332 can comprise one or more spectrum heat maps that indicate network coverage strength for network types originating from base stations located throughout the given region.” (Col. 14, ll. 28–31)
Rationale: The creation of spectrum heat maps (wireless communication environment map) discloses creating the claimed map.
using the acquired wireless communication environment data,
See at least: “The backend system 300 can update the spectrum heat map based on network updates 369 received from the AV 390 being sent out and traveling throughout the given region (610).” (Col. 20, ll. 43–47)
Rationale: Ross teaches using the data acquired from the machines to build/update the heat map.
and wherein the processing circuitry formulates the operation plan
See at least: “...the backend system 300 can utilize the updated spectrum heat map to (i) determine the optimal travel route 363 from the pick-up location 317 to the destination 319...” (Col. 15, ll. 2–5)
Rationale: The backend circuitry uses the data from the spectrum map to perform the formulation of the route.
based on a data acquisition state of each section in the working area on the wireless communication environment map
See at least: “The stored resource or heat maps 332 can be in varying resolutions and/or may refer specifically to road segments or even road lanes throughout the given region.” (Col. 14, ll. 32–35); “The route optimization engine 360 can perform the optimization operation... based on... connectivity and data transmission requirements along each of the route options...” (Col. 13, ll. 19–20; Col. 12, ll. 37–38); “Update Spectrum Heat Map Based on Received Data” (Fig. 6, 610)
Rationale: Ross teaches formulating the route based on the network quality/strength (data acquisition state) of road segments (sections) identified on the spectrum heat map.
wherein the autonomously movable work machine periodically transmits information to the processing circuitry,
See at least: “The AVs 390 can periodically transmit their AV locations 373 over the network(s) 375... communications 160 transmitted from and received by the AV 100 can include status updates 161 of the AV 100...” (Col. 12, ll. 3–4; Col. 5, ll. 47–49)
Rationale: Ross teaches that the machines periodically transmit status and location information to the backend circuitry.
the information including at least wireless communication environment data
See at least: “...communications 160 transmitted from and received by the AV 100 can include... network latency data 168... and video and audio data 167” (Col. 5, ll. 47–51)
Rationale: Ross explicitly teaches that the periodic information includes network latency data (wireless communication environment data).
and transmit a command input by a user to the autonomously movable work machine
See at least: “The backend system 250 can include a transport facilitation engine 255 that generates and transmits transport commands 170 and manages a fleet of AVs within a given region. For any given AV (e.g., AV 200) in the managed fleet, the transport commands can be received by the AV’s communications array 245, which is operated by the AV’s 200 communication system 235.” (Col. 8, ll. 17–23)
Rationale: Ross discloses transmitting transport commands (commands based on user pick-up/destination requests) to the work machine.
to control the autonomously movable work machine
See at least: “The communication system 235 can transmit the transport commands to an AV control system 220, which can operate the acceleration, steering, braking, lights, signals, and other operative systems 225 of the AV 200 in order to drive and maneuver the AV 200 through road traffic to destinations specified by the transport commands.” (Col. 8, ll. 23–29)
Rationale: The purpose of the transmitted commands is to operate the mechanical systems (control) of the machine.
based on the command.
See at least: “specified by the transport commands.” (Col. 8, ll. 28–29)
Rationale: The work machine drives to the specific destination as dictated by the received instruction (command).
wherein the processing circuitry formulates the operation plan such that
See at least: “For each pick-up request or trip, the backend system can perform an optimization operation to determine an optimal route for an AV to travel …” (Col. 2, ll. 7–10)
Rationale: The cited “backend system” performing an “optimization operation to determine an optimal route” corresponds to processing circuitry formulating an operation plan (route/plan) such that downstream route/path selection behavior is produced.
among the sections in the working area on the wireless communication environment map
See at least: “In various examples, the stored resource or heat maps 332 can be in varying resolutions and/or may refer specifically to road segments or even road lanes throughout the given region.” (Col. 14, ll. 32–35)
Rationale: “heat maps” referring to “road segments … throughout the given region” corresponds to sections in a working area represented on a wireless communication environment map.
are preferentially included in the movement path.
See at least: “The backend system can target these network-limited areas and route selected AVs so that AVs traveling through these areas can continue to communicate …” (Col. 2, ll. 56–59)
Rationale: “target … areas” and “route selected AVs so that AVs traveling through these areas” corresponds to preferential inclusion of identified sections/areas into a planned route/movement path.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Ross
Ross does not explicitly disclose:
and image data around the autonomously movable work machine,
wherein the autonomously movable work machine is configured to preferentially transmit the image data
and hold other information of the information transmitted by the autonomously moveable work machine other than the image data in a memory
based on a decrease in communication speed of a wireless communication environment
from a first level to a second level lower than the first level
at a current position of the autonomously movable work machine,
and transmit the other information held in the memory
based on a recovery of the communication speed of the wireless communication environment
from the second level to the first level
at the current position,
and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to control a displaying of an image on a display
based on the image data,
a section in which the wireless communication environment data is missing
and a section in which the wireless communication environment data is not updated
exceeding a predetermined time
Disclosure by Pedersen
Pedersen discloses:
and image data around the autonomously movable work machine,
See at least: “The network bandwidth is often used to exchange signals that include data associated with... the state of the environment in which the autonomous vehicles operate (e.g., surrounding roads, city, traffic updates, etc.)” [0010]; “the sensor data can be used to generate a representation of the physical environment in and around the vehicle; internal state data, including imagery…” [0073].
Rationale: Pedersen teaches the collection and transmission of environmental sensor data (image data) representing the area surrounding (around) the autonomous vehicle.
wherein the autonomously movable work machine is configured to preferentially transmit the image data
See at least: “...the functions performed by the disclosed technology include prioritizing data from vehicles based on sensor location and received instructions... prioritizing transmittance of sensor data... provide more effective bandwidth constrained image processing...” [0014]; “The prioritized sensor data message includes a request for prioritized sensor data from the sensors in the vehicle. The prioritized sensor data message can include any of: the data transfer rate, which can be used in determining a priority of the sensors (e.g., a data transfer rate that is insufficient to transmit high resolution video imagery could be used by the vehicle to assign a higher priority to transmitting still images or lower resolution video imagery); a preferred sensor type (e.g., when the environment is darker, including at night, an infrared sensor can be prioritized higher than an optical sensor that detects visible light); and a preferred state data type which can include a priority ranking of the types of state data, for example, external environment data associated with images of the external environment can be prioritized over vehicle exterior data associated with images of the vehicle’s exterior, which could in turn be prioritized over images including symbolic indicators of the temperature or humidity inside the vehicle” [0079].
Rationale: Pedersen teaches a protocol that prioritizes (preferentially transmits) image data over other streams when communication is constrained.
based on a decrease in communication speed of a wireless communication environment
See at least: “The disclosed technology provides a way to determine when a data transfer rate does not satisfy a data transfer rate criterion (e.g., the data transfer rate is low enough or below a predetermined threshold...)” [0014].
Rationale: Pedersen’s teachings use a data transfer rate falling below a threshold (decrease in communication speed) to trigger prioritization functions.
from a first level to a second level lower than the first level
See at least: “determine when a data transfer rate does not satisfy a data transfer rate criterion (e.g., the data transfer rate is low enough or below a predetermined threshold” [0014].
Rationale: The “predetermined … threshold” delineates a higher level (above-threshold) and a lower level (below-threshold).
at a current position of the autonomously movable work machine,
See at least: “In response to determining that the data transfer rate satisfies a data transfer rate criterion... a location of a vehicle... can be determined...” [0024].
Rationale: Pedersen teaches that the rate monitoring and subsequent priority adjustments are linked to the specific location (current position) of the vehicle.
based on a recovery of the communication speed of the wireless communication environment
See at least: “...the vehicle can wait in a secure location until the data transfer rate increases... retrieving the image data when the data transfer rate satisfies the data transfer rate criterion.” [0078].
Rationale: Pedersen teaches that normal operations or data retrieval are triggered when the rate “increases,” which constitutes a functional recovery of speed.
from the second level to the first level
See at least: “...wait in a secure location until the data transfer rate increases, and the image stream from the vehicle is of sufficient quality for the tele-operator to continue providing assistance...” [0078].
Rationale: Pedersen teaches recovering from the constrained state (second level) to a state of sufficient quality/satisfying the criterion (first level).
at the current position,
See at least: “...the vehicle can wait in a secure location until the data transfer rate increases...” [0078].
Rationale: The recovery trigger is tied to the vehicle’s location where the signal improvement occurs.
and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to control a displaying of an image on a display
See at least: “The client computing device can then generate a representation of the bandwidth constrained image processing interface 3000 on a display device... which can then be displayed using the GUI for interaction by an operator.” [0059].
Rationale: Pedersen teaches management circuitry (controller/client device) that controls a display to present visual images to an operator.
based on the image data.
See at least: “...improving the way in which image data (used to produce visual images) is processed... the ability of vehicle operators and others who rely on visual images to provide assistance to vehicles is facilitated.” [0011].
Rationale: Pedersen teaches that the display is specifically generated based on the image data transmitted from the machine.
Motivation to Combine Ross and Pedersen
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross and Pedersen before them, to modify Ross’s backend management system that coordinates routes for a fleet of AVs using network resource/heat maps and AV-provided network condition data by incorporating Pedersen’s bandwidth-constrained image processing and data-prioritization techniques, including prioritizing transmission of image-related state data when a data transfer rate does not satisfy a criterion and controlling a display/GUI to present images based on received image data, because Ross already operates in the same technical context of network-limited communications with autonomous vehicles and relies on wireless-network metrics to support fleet operations, while Pedersen expressly addresses the known problem of maintaining usable operator-facing visual information and image-based assistance under constrained or changing network transfer rates. Implementing Pedersen’s priority policy and display-control interface within Ross’s backend/teleoperation communications framework would have been a straightforward substitution of known communication-management and UI techniques for predictable improvement, namely, enabling the backend/operator to continue receiving and displaying usable image data under degraded bandwidth conditions while preserving Ross’s existing route coordination and network-aware fleet management functions, without requiring changes to Ross’s fundamental backend architecture.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Ross and Pedersen
Ross and Pedersen do not explicitly disclose:
and hold other information of the information transmitted by the autonomously moveable work machine other than the image data in a memory,
and transmit the other information held in the memory
Disclosure by Stenneth
Stenneth discloses:
and hold other information of the information transmitted by the autonomously moveable work machine other than the image data in a memory
See at least: “...determine whether to cause... (a) a transmission of sensor data... (b) a caching of the sensor data prior to a batch transmission of the sensor data to the at least one receiving entity, or (c) a combination thereof.” (Abstract); “...a sensor data relating to the trunk of the at least one vehicle is not critical and can be archived before it can be sent to the cloud.” [0023].
Rationale: Stenneth teaches prioritizing sensor data and holding (caching/archiving) non-critical information (other information) in memory when immediate transmission is not required.
and transmit the other information held in the memory
See at least: “the X sensor data may be removed from the cache and placed on the channel before the Y sensor data.” [0058].
Rationale: Stenneth teaches that data held in the cache (memory) is subsequently removed from the cache and transmitted (placed on the channel) to the receiving entity.
a section in which the wireless communication environment data is missing
See at least: Stenneth identifies a “network detection sensor for detecting wireless signals” [0020] and teaches that its extrapolation module processes mapped cells “based, at least in part, on a determination that the at least one cell has inadequate sensor data.” [0036].
Rationale: Stenneth expressly treats detected wireless signals as sensor data and identifies mapped cells having inadequate sensor data. Within the Ross wireless-environment map, such a cell corresponds to a section in which the wireless communication environment data is missing or insufficient for the section.
and a section in which the wireless communication environment data is not updated
See at least: “Each cell [1111] maintains several pieces of information including ... amount and time of sensor data it received,” and “there is a need to extrapolate sensor data for cells which have stale or limited sensor data from cells that have current and stable sensor data.” [0059]–[0060].
Rationale: Stenneth tracks the amount and time of data received for each mapped cell and expressly identifies cells having stale data. A cell whose data are stale is a section in which the mapped data have not been updated.
exceeding a predetermined time
See at least: “maximum (max) cache duration [1007] determines the maximum time one or more sensor data should be stored in the local cache ... Any sensor data that exceeds the max cache duration is pruned from the cache.” [0058].
Rationale: Stenneth applies a predefined maximum-duration threshold to determine whether stored sensor data have exceeded an allowable age. Applying that disclosed time threshold to Stenneth’s cell-specific timestamps predictably identifies a mapped section whose data have not been updated for longer than a predetermined time.
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to further modify the combined Ross–Pedersen system by incorporating Stenneth’s explicit caching/archiving and batch-transmission control for lower-priority sensor data, including determining whether to transmit immediately versus cache prior to batch transmission, and later removing cached data and placing it on the channel, because Ross already depends on continuous vehicle-to-backend communications and Pedersen expressly prioritizes image-related data when bandwidth is constrained, i.e., when the data transfer rate falls below a criterion, which predictably creates a need to temporarily defer or buffer non-image (“other”) information during low-throughput conditions. Stenneth provides a directly compatible, well-known solution—caching non-critical data in memory and scheduling its later transmission—so that bandwidth is reserved for higher-priority image-related information during degradation, while the deferred data is reliably delivered once communications improve. This combination yields predictable results, including improved bandwidth utilization, reduced packet loss/congestion, and improved continuity of image-based operator assistance, using established techniques in the same field of vehicle telemetry transmission management and does not require undue redesign beyond routine integration of cache-and-batch logic into the existing transmission control of the backend/vehicle communication pipeline.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth establishes the management system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 3.
Disclosure by Ross
Ross discloses:
wherein the autonomously movable work machine includes a plurality of work machines,
See at least: “A backend system is provided to send out and coordinate routes for a fleet of AVs within a given region …” (Col. 1, ll. 66–67)
Rationale: A “fleet of AVs” corresponds to a plurality of work machines, and Ross’s backend system coordinates routes for that fleet, satisfying wherein the autonomously movable work machine includes a plurality of work machines.
and wherein when the work request is assigned to one autonomously movable work machine among the plurality of autonomously movable work machines,
See at least: “The backend system can instruct and send out AVs to service the pick-up requests …” (Col. 2, ll. 58–59)
Rationale: Instructing and sending out a specific AV “to service” a request corresponds to assigning that request to one autonomously movable work machine among the plurality of autonomously movable work machines. This supports the when-condition portion of the claim, i.e., the event of assignment.
the processing circuitry assumes that the wireless communication environment data on the movement path along which the autonomously movable work machine moves is acquired.
See at least: “AVs 590 being sent out and traveling throughout the given region can provide updates 568 to the network data 521, such as network latency updates 569 …” (Col. 18, ll. 33–36)
Rationale: Ross expressly teaches that dispatched AVs traveling along their routes “provide … network latency updates,” which are wireless communication environment data acquired along the traveled path. Further, because (i) the request is assigned by sending out a particular AV, as mapped above, and (ii) sent-out AVs traveling provide network-latency updates, a PHOSITA would understand Ross’s backend/processing circuitry necessarily operates on the premise or expectation, i.e., “assumes,” that such wireless-environment updates on the movement path along which the autonomously movable work machine moves will be acquired as the AV travels, satisfying the required when-conditioned relationship: assignment → dispatch/travel → acquisition of network-latency data.
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to further configure the combined management system, already established for Claim 1, such that, when the work request is assigned to one autonomously movable work machine among the plurality of autonomously movable work machines, the processing circuitry assumes that the wireless communication environment data on the movement path along which the autonomously movable work machine moves is acquired, because Ross already assigns requests by selecting and sending out a particular vehicle from a fleet on a route, and Stenneth teaches monitoring/deriving wireless conditions via detected “wireless signals” and coordinating expectations/data-sufficiency relative to regions and the “current and future path” of vehicles, such that incorporating Stenneth’s path-associated data expectation into the request-assignment/routing context yields the predictable result that, upon assignment and routing, the system operates on the expectation/assumption that the relevant wireless-environment data along the vehicle’s movement path will be acquired as the vehicle traverses that path.
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth establishes the management system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 4.
Disclosure by Ross
Ross discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry formulates the operation plan
See at least: “For each pick-up request or trip, the backend system can perform an optimization operation to determine an optimal route for an AV to travel …” (Col. 2, ll. 7–10)
Rationale: The cited “backend system” performing an “optimization operation to determine an optimal route” corresponds to processing circuitry formulating an operation plan (route/plan) such that downstream route/path selection behavior is produced.
based further on a wireless communication environment of each section in the working area.
See at least: “...the backend system 300 can utilize the updated spectrum heat map to (i) determine the optimal travel route 363...” (Col. 15, ll. 2–5); “The network resource maps 332 can comprise one or more spectrum heat maps that indicate network coverage strength for network types... the stored resource or heat maps 332... may refer specifically to road segments or even road lanes throughout the given region.” (Col. 14, ll. 28–35); “The route optimization engine 360 can perform the optimization operation...” (Col. 13, ll. 19–20); “...connectivity and data transmission requirements along each of the route options...” (Col. 12, ll. 37–38)
Rationale: Ross teaches that the route formulation is based on a “spectrum heat map,” which indicates “network coverage strength,” i.e., the wireless communication environment, of “road segments,” i.e., each section, throughout the “given region,” i.e., the working area. Because Ross explicitly lists “connectivity and data transmission requirements” as an additional factor evaluated alongside map and traffic data in the optimization engine, it teaches the formulation is based further on the wireless environment.
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to configure the combined management system, already established for Claim 1, such that the operation plan is formulated based further on a wireless communication environment of each section in the working area. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize Ross’s “spectrum heat map” logic, which evaluates connectivity metrics for specific road segments, in conjunction with Stenneth’s map-cell auditing, because modern autonomous fleet managers require high-fidelity awareness of the signal landscape to ensure reliable tele-operation and data offloading. Incorporating the environment of each mapped section into the path-selection algorithm yields the predictable result of an information-aware route that avoids network dead zones or high-latency segments, thereby ensuring that the safety-critical visual stream, as taught by Pedersen, remains uninterrupted during the work machine’s traversal of the working area.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth establishes the management system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 5.
Disclosure by Ross
Ross discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry further formulates the operation plan
See at least: “For each pick-up request or trip, the backend system can perform an optimization operation to determine an optimal route for an AV to travel …” (Col. 2, ll. 7–10)
Rationale: The cited “backend system” performing an “optimization operation to determine an optimal route” corresponds to processing circuitry formulating an operation plan (route/plan) such that downstream route/path selection behavior is produced.
based on a road surface condition of each section in the working area.
See at least: “the backend system 300 selects the AV based on a shortest ETA by accounting for road conditions...” (Col. 20, ll. 61–62); “The alerts 169 can include information ranging from emergency communications... road quality alerts, and the like.” (Col. 7, ll. 19–21); “The stored resource or heat maps 332... may refer specifically to road segments or even road lanes throughout the given region.” (Col. 14, ll. 32–35)
Rationale: Ross teaches that the route formulation is based on “road conditions,” i.e., road surface condition. Because Ross explicitly describes the collection of “road quality alerts” and includes “road conditions” as a variable in the route optimization engine for specific “road segments,” i.e., each section, within the given region, i.e., working area, the reference discloses the triggered relationship and the condition.
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to configure the combined management system, already established for Claim 1, such that the operation plan is based on a road surface condition of each section in the working area. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate road quality data into Ross’s optimization engine because the physical safety and operational efficiency of an autonomously movable work machine depend heavily on the traversability of the surface. Ross already anticipates using “road quality alerts” and “road conditions” to select which AV services a request; applying this same logic to the path-formulation stage, as taught by Ross’s optimization engine, is a predictable improvement. This combination yields the predictable result of a management system that steers machines away from degraded or unsuitable road surfaces, thereby reducing mechanical wear and ensuring that high-priority image data, as taught by Pedersen, is not disrupted by vibration or loss of traction caused by poor surface conditions.
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth establishes the management system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 6.
Disclosure by Ross
Ross discloses:
wherein the autonomously movable work machine includes a plurality of autonomously movable work machines,
See at least: “A backend system is provided to send out and coordinate routes for a fleet of AVs within a given region …” (Col. 1, ll. 66–67)
Rationale: Ross’s “fleet of AVs” corresponds to a plurality of autonomously movable work machines managed by the system.
and wherein the processing circuitry formulates the operation plan
See at least: “For each pick-up request or trip, the backend system can perform an optimization operation to determine an optimal route for an AV to travel …” (Col. 2, ll. 7–10)
Rationale: The backend system, comprising processing resources 1210, performing an optimization to determine an optimal route corresponds to the processing circuitry that formulates the operation plan.
based further on the movement path of the autonomously movable work machine that has not completed the work request assigned thereto.
See at least: “the AV tracking and updating system 500 can identify candidate AVs 590 that have been assigned to service pick-up requests, and that will be within a predetermined distance from the off-network AV … monitor the current routes traveled by candidate AVs … identify intercept points along the respective routes where the proximate AVs can establish a mesh network …” (Col. 22, ll. 33–51); “The routing of these AVs, which may also be routed to respective destinations, can be timed, routed, and rerouted in a manner such that the limited nature of network availability in these areas is sufficiently mitigated …” (Col. 2, ll. 61–65); “The backend system can determine the optimal route based on the results of the optimization operation, which can account for predicted communications requirements … mesh networking …” (Col. 2, ll. 22–26)
Rationale: Ross discloses identifying “candidate AVs” that have been “assigned to service pick-up requests” and are “traveling” along “current routes.” An AV assigned to service a request that is currently traveling is inherently an autonomously movable work machine that has not completed the work request assigned thereto. Ross teaches that the system “monitors” these “current routes,” i.e., movement path, to “identify intercept points” and “manage routing,” i.e., formulates the operation plan, for the target vehicle. Because the system “accounts for” these mesh-networking opportunities, the paths of other machines on-mission, in the optimization engine alongside other factors, it teaches that the plan is based further on those paths.
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to configure Ross’s fleet-management backend that assigns requests and generates or updates routes for a plurality of autonomous vehicles to additionally incorporate (i) Pedersen’s bandwidth-aware prioritization and operator-facing visual support under constrained links, and (ii) Stenneth’s coordination logic for leveraging other vehicles’ planned or active paths and data-sharing behaviors, so that operation-plan formulation for a selected work machine is further informed by the contemporaneous routes or paths of other work machines that are currently servicing assigned requests, because all three references address coordinating autonomous-vehicle operation over wireless networks with variable connectivity and limited throughput, and combining (a) Ross’s route optimization and dispatch, (b) Pedersen’s communications-aware transmission handling for continued oversight, and (c) Stenneth’s multi-vehicle coordination techniques would have predictably improved fleet-level efficiency and reliability by allowing the backend to select or adjust routes with awareness of in-progress vehicle paths and available cooperative connectivity or data-support opportunities, without requiring changes beyond routine integration of known routing, communications-management, and coordination techniques.
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth establishes the management system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 7.
Disclosure by Ross
Ross discloses:
wherein the autonomously movable work machine includes
See at least: “A backend system is provided to send out and coordinate routes for a fleet of AVs within a given region …” (Col. 1, ll. 66–67)
Rationale: A system that sends out and coordinates routes for a fleet of AVs necessarily includes autonomously movable work machines within the managed fleet.
a first autonomously movable work machine
See at least: “A backend system is provided to send out and coordinate routes for a fleet of AVs within a given region …” (Col. 1, ll. 66–67)
Rationale: A “fleet of AVs” necessarily includes at least a first AV, i.e., a first autonomously movable work machine, as one member of the fleet.
and a second autonomously movable work machine,
See at least: “A backend system is provided to send out and coordinate routes for a fleet of AVs within a given region …” (Col. 1, ll. 66–67)
Rationale: A “fleet of AVs” further necessarily includes at least a second AV, i.e., a second autonomously movable work machine, as another member of the fleet.
wherein the processing circuitry assigns
See at least: “The backend system can instruct and send out AVs to service the pick-up requests …” (Col. 2, ll. 1–4)
Rationale: “instruct and send out AVs to service the pick-up requests” evidences assignment logic performed by the backend system’s processing circuitry, i.e., assigning work to particular AVs.
a plurality of work requests
See at least: “The backend system can receive pick-up requests from user devices …” (Col. 2, ll. 1–4)
Rationale: “pick-up requests,” plural, evidences a plurality of work requests handled by the backend system.
to the first autonomously movable work machine
See at least: “The backend system can instruct and send out AVs to service the pick-up requests …” (Col. 2, ll. 1–4)
Rationale: Because the backend sends out AVs to service requests, the backend assigns a given request to a selected AV; a selected AV from the fleet corresponds to the first autonomously movable work machine.
before the second autonomously movable work machine completes
See at least: “the AV tracking and updating system 500 can identify candidate AVs 590 that have been assigned to service pick-up requests … monitor the current routes traveled by candidate AVs …” (Col. 22, ll. 33–51)
Rationale: An AV that “has been assigned to service pick-up requests” and for which the system “monitors the current routes traveled” is necessarily in-progress, i.e., has not yet completed the assigned request, satisfying the temporal relationship “before … completes.”
the work request
See at least: “the AV tracking and updating system 500 can identify candidate AVs 590 that have been assigned to service pick-up requests …” (Col. 22, ll. 33–51)
Rationale: The “pick-up request” being serviced corresponds to the work request.
assigned to the second autonomously moveable work machine,
See at least: “the AV tracking and updating system 500 can identify candidate AVs 590 that have been assigned to service pick-up requests …” (Col. 22, ll. 33–51)
Rationale: The “candidate AVs” are AVs within the fleet, i.e., autonomously movable work machines, to which service requests are assigned; a candidate AV distinct from the first corresponds to the second autonomously movable work machine.
and wherein a length of the movement path
See at least: “monitor the current routes traveled by candidate AVs … identify intercept points along the respective routes …” (Col. 22, ll. 33–51)
Rationale: “routes traveled” or “respective routes” correspond to movement paths, each of which has a length as a basic property of a route or path.
for each of the plurality of work requests
See at least: “The backend system can receive pick-up requests from user devices …” (Col. 2, ll. 1–4)
Rationale: The backend receives multiple, plural, pick-up requests, i.e., a plurality of work requests, each of which is handled by route or dispatch logic.
assigned to the first autonomously movable work machine
See at least: “The backend system can instruct and send out AVs to service the pick-up requests …” (Col. 2, ll. 1–4)
Rationale: The backend assigns service of requests to selected AVs; those selected AVs correspond to the first autonomously movable work machine for the subset of requests routed to it.
is shorter than a length of the movement path
See at least: “within a predetermined distance from the off-network AV … monitor the current routes traveled by candidate AVs …” (Col. 22, ll. 33–51)
Rationale: “within a predetermined distance” is an express distance or length constraint applied to candidate vehicles relative to another vehicle or location; distance is a direct measure of path length and supports a comparative “shorter than” relationship as a constrained-selection criterion on routing or path planning.
for the work request
See at least: “candidate AVs 590 that have been assigned to service pick-up requests …” (Col. 22, ll. 33–51)
Rationale: The referenced “pick-up request” being serviced corresponds to the work request used for comparison.
assigned to the second autonomously movable work machine.
See at least: “candidate AVs 590 that have been assigned to service pick-up requests … monitor the current routes traveled by candidate AVs …” (Col. 22, ll. 33–51)
Rationale: The “candidate AVs” include a vehicle that is assigned a pick-up request and traveling its current route; a vehicle different from the first AV corresponds to the second autonomously movable work machine assigned the work request.
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to configure the multi-vehicle management system that dispatches and routes a fleet of autonomously movable work machines to incorporate (i) communications-quality-aware operational constraints and timing criteria used for vehicle data-transfer management, as taught by Pedersen, and (ii) coordination logic that evaluates vehicle route or path states for managing fleet behavior over mapped regions, as taught by Stenneth, thereby enabling the processing circuitry to assign multiple work requests to one vehicle while another vehicle remains en route on its assigned request, and to do so using comparative route or path distance constraints to preferentially select shorter movement paths for the assigned set, because these references are in the same field of fleet coordination under connectivity constraints and predictably improve dispatch efficiency and operational reliability by applying known route-state awareness and timing or communications criteria to multi-vehicle assignment and path-length-based selection.
Regarding Claim 8,
Disclosure by Ross
Ross discloses:
A management method for an autonomously movable work machine,
See at least: “method of managing transportation and network connection timing for a fleet of AVs throughout a given region” (Col. 1, ll. 39–41)
Rationale: Ross discloses a backend management method for a fleet of autonomously movable work machines (AVs).
the management method being executed by processing circuitry,
See at least: “In one implementation, the computer system 1200 includes processing resources 1210... The computer system 1200 includes at least one processor 1210 for processing information stored in the main memory 1220...” (Col. 32, ll. 4–9)
Rationale: The backend system’s management method includes processors, i.e., processing circuitry, for executing management tasks.
and comprising receiving a work request;
See at least: “The backend system can receive pick-up requests from user devices executing a designated application to facilitate transportation for requesting users.” (Col. 2, ll. 1–4)
Rationale: The receipt of pick-up requests from users by the backend system discloses receiving a work request.
formulating an operation plan of the autonomously movable work machine based on the work request,
See at least: “For each pick-up request or trip, the backend system can perform an optimization operation to determine an optimal route for an AV to travel...” (Col. 2, ll. 7–10)
Rationale: Formulating an optimal route, i.e., an operation plan, in response to a pick-up request, i.e., a work request, discloses formulating an operation plan based on the work request.
the operation plan including a movement path of the autonomously movable work machine
See at least: “The backend system can instruct and send out AVs to service the pick-up requests... determine an optimal route for an AV to travel... utilize map data 343 and the network resource map 332 to determine a number of possible routes 367” (Col. 2, ll. 1–4; Col. 25, ll. 51–57)
Rationale: The optimization operation determines a route, i.e., movement path, which is included in the plan sent to the work machine.
in a working area of the autonomously movable work machine;
See at least: “The backend system 195 can utilize the location data 162 to, for example, manage routing of a fleet of AVs within a given region (e.g., a transportation arrangement service utilizing hundreds to thousands of AVS and spanning a city or a certain population).” (Col. 6, ll. 1–5)
Rationale: The region or city in which the fleet operates discloses a working area.
assigning the work request to the autonomously movable work machine based on the operation plan;
See at least: “The backend system can instruct and send out AVs to service the pick-up requests... automatically send out AVs on the optimal default routes for pick-up requests...” (Col. 2, l. 58; Col. 3, ll. 15–18)
Rationale: Sending a machine to service a request along a determined route discloses assigning the work request to the machine based on the plan.
acquiring wireless communication environment data on the movement path
See at least: “the AV tracking and updating system 500 can receive updated network data from the AVs 590 that indicate current network latency for any number of... network latency data 168 can be communicated from the AV 100 to the backend system 195...” (Col. 25, ll. 2–4; Col. 6, ll. 42–43)
Rationale: Ross discloses acquiring network latency and bandwidth data, i.e., wireless communication environment data, from the machines as they travel.
collected by the autonomously movable work machine;
See at least: “AVs 590 being sent out and traveling throughout the given region can provide updates 568 to the network data 521, such as network latency updates 569 and cost updates 562. ... AV3 593 can provide the updated latency data...” (Col. 18, ll. 33–45)
Rationale: Ross explicitly teaches that the work machines, i.e., AVs, collect the network-environment data and transmit it back to the system.
and create a wireless communication environment map of the working area
See at least: “The network resource maps 332 can comprise one or more spectrum heat maps that indicate network coverage strength for network types originating from base stations located throughout the given region.” (Col. 14, ll. 28–31)
Rationale: The creation of spectrum heat maps, i.e., wireless communication environment maps, discloses creating the claimed map.
using the acquired wireless communication environment data,
See at least: “The backend system 300 can update the spectrum heat map based on network updates 369 received from the AV 390 being sent out and traveling throughout the given region (610).” (Col. 20, ll. 43–47)
Rationale: Ross teaches using the data acquired from the machines to build or update the heat map.
and wherein the operation plan is formulated
See at least: “...the backend system 300 can utilize the updated spectrum heat map to (i) determine the optimal travel route 363 from the pick-up location 317 to the destination 319...” (Col. 15, ll. 2–5)
Rationale: The backend circuitry uses the data from the spectrum map to perform the formulation of the route.
based on a data acquisition state of each section in the working area on the wireless communication environment map
See at least: “The stored resource or heat maps 332 can be in varying resolutions and/or may refer specifically to road segments or even road lanes throughout the given region.” (Col. 14, ll. 32–35)
See also: “The route optimization engine 360 can perform the optimization operation... based on... connectivity and data transmission requirements along each of the route options...” (Col. 13, ll. 19–20; Col. 12, ll. 37–38)
See at least: “Update Spectrum Heat Map Based on Received Data” (Fig. 6, 610)
Rationale: Ross teaches formulating the route based on the network quality or strength, i.e., data acquisition state, of road segments, i.e., sections, identified on the spectrum heat map.
wherein the autonomously movable work machine periodically transmits information to the processing circuitry,
See at least: “The AVs 390 can periodically transmit their AV locations 373 over the network(s) 375... communications 160 transmitted from and received by the AV 100 can include status updates 161 of the AV 100...” (Col. 12, ll. 3–4; Col. 5, ll. 47–49)
Rationale: Ross teaches that the machines periodically transmit status and location information to the backend circuitry.
the information including at least wireless communication environment data
See at least: “...communications 160 transmitted from and received by the AV 100 can include... network latency data 168... and video and audio data 167” (Col. 5, ll. 47–51)
Rationale: Ross explicitly teaches that the periodic information includes network latency data, i.e., wireless communication environment data.
and transmitting a command input by a user to the autonomously movable work machine
See at least: “The backend system 250 can include a transport facilitation engine 255 that generates and transmits transport commands 170 and manages a fleet of AVs within a given region. For any given AV (e.g., AV 200) in the managed fleet, the transport commands can be received by the AV’s communications array 245, which is operated by the AV’s 200 communication system 235.” (Col. 8, ll. 17–23)
Rationale: Ross discloses transmitting transport commands, i.e., commands based on user pick-up or destination requests, to the work machine.
to control the autonomously movable work machine
See at least: “The communication system 235 can transmit the transport commands to an AV control system 220, which can operate the acceleration, steering, braking, lights, signals, and other operative systems 225 of the AV 200 in order to drive and maneuver the AV 200 through road traffic to destinations specified by the transport commands.” (Col. 8, ll. 23–29)
Rationale: The purpose of the transmitted commands is to operate the mechanical systems, i.e., control, of the machine.
based on the command.
See at least: “specified by the transport commands.” (Col. 8, ll. 28–29)
Rationale: The work machine drives to the specific destination as dictated by the received instruction, i.e., command.
wherein the processing circuitry is formulated such that
See at least: “For each pick-up request or trip, the backend system can perform an optimization operation to determine an optimal route for an AV to travel ...” (Col. 2, ll. 7–10)
Rationale: Ross’s processor-based backend performs the route-formulation operation that produces the downstream path-selection behavior recited by the method.
among the sections in the working area on the wireless communication environment map
See at least: “In various examples, the stored resource or heat maps 332 can be in varying resolutions and/or may refer specifically to road segments or even road lanes throughout the given region.” (Col. 14, ll. 32–35)
Rationale: “heat maps” referring to “road segments … throughout the given region” corresponds to sections in a working area represented on a wireless communication environment map.
are preferentially included in the movement path.
See at least: “The backend system can target these network-limited areas and route selected AVs so that AVs traveling through these areas can continue to communicate …” (Col. 2, ll. 56–59)
Rationale: “target … areas” and “route selected AVs so that AVs traveling through these areas” corresponds to preferential inclusion of identified sections or areas into a planned route or movement path.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Ross
Ross does not explicitly disclose:
and image data around the autonomously movable work machine,
and wherein the autonomously movable work machine is configured to preferentially transmit the image data
and hold other information of the information transmitted by the autonomously moveable work machine other than the image data in a memory
based on a decrease in communication speed of a wireless communication environment
from a first level to a second level lower than the first level
at a current position of the autonomously movable work machine,
and transmit the other information held in the memory
based on a recovery of the communication speed of the wireless communication environment
from the second level to the first level
at the current position;
and displaying of an image on a display
based on the image data,
a section in which the wireless communication environment data is missing
and a section in which the wireless communication environment data is not updated
exceeding a predetermined time
Disclosure by Pedersen
Pedersen discloses:
and image data around the autonomously movable work machine,
See at least: “The network bandwidth is often used to exchange signals that include data associated with... the state of the environment in which the autonomous vehicles operate (e.g., surrounding roads, city, traffic updates, etc.)” [0010]; “the sensor data can be used to generate a representation of the physical environment in and around the vehicle; internal state data, including imagery…” [0073].
Rationale: Pedersen teaches the collection and transmission of environmental sensor data, i.e., image data, representing the area surrounding or around the autonomous vehicle.
wherein the autonomously movable work machine is configured to preferentially transmit the image data
See at least: “...the functions performed by the disclosed technology include prioritizing data from vehicles based on sensor location and received instructions... prioritizing transmittance of sensor data... provide more effective bandwidth constrained image processing...” [0014]; “The prioritized sensor data message includes a request for prioritized sensor data from the sensors in the vehicle. The prioritized sensor data message can include any of: the data transfer rate, which can be used in determining a priority of the sensors (e.g., a data transfer rate that is insufficient to transmit high resolution video imagery could be used by the vehicle to assign a higher priority to transmitting still images or lower resolution video imagery); a preferred sensor type (e.g., when the environment is darker, including at night, an infrared sensor can be prioritized higher than an optical sensor that detects visible light); and a preferred state data type which can include a priority ranking of the types of state data, for example, external environment data associated with images of the external environment can be prioritized over vehicle exterior data associated with images of the vehicle’s exterior, which could in turn be prioritized over images including symbolic indicators of the temperature or humidity inside the vehicle” [0079].
Rationale: Pedersen teaches a protocol that prioritizes, i.e., preferentially transmits, image data over other streams when communication is constrained.
based on a decrease in communication speed of a wireless communication environment
See at least: “The disclosed technology provides a way to determine when a data transfer rate does not satisfy a data transfer rate criterion (e.g., the data transfer rate is low enough or below a predetermined threshold...)” [0014].
Rationale: Pedersen’s teachings use a data transfer rate falling below a threshold, i.e., a decrease in communication speed, to trigger prioritization functions.
from a first level to a second level lower than the first level
See at least: “determine when a data transfer rate does not satisfy a data transfer rate criterion (e.g., the data transfer rate is low enough or below a predetermined threshold” [0014].
Rationale: The “predetermined … threshold” delineates a higher level, i.e., above threshold, and a lower level, i.e., below threshold.
at a current position of the autonomously movable work machine,
See at least: “In response to determining that the data transfer rate satisfies a data transfer rate criterion... a location of a vehicle... can be determined...” [0024].
Rationale: Pedersen teaches that the rate monitoring and subsequent priority adjustments are linked to the specific location, i.e., current position, of the vehicle.
based on a recovery of the communication speed of the wireless communication environment
See at least: “...the vehicle can wait in a secure location until the data transfer rate increases... retrieving the image data when the data transfer rate satisfies the data transfer rate criterion.” [0078].
Rationale: Pedersen teaches that normal operations or data retrieval are triggered when the rate “increases,” which constitutes a functional recovery of speed.
from the second level to the first level
See at least: “...wait in a secure location until the data transfer rate increases, and the image stream from the vehicle is of sufficient quality for the tele-operator to continue providing assistance...” [0078].
Rationale: Pedersen teaches recovering from the constrained state, i.e., second level, to a state of sufficient quality or satisfying the criterion, i.e., first level.
at the current position,
See at least: “...the vehicle can wait in a secure location until the data transfer rate increases...” [0078].
Rationale: The recovery trigger is tied to the vehicle’s location where the signal improvement occurs.
and displaying of an image on a display
See at least: “The client computing device can then generate a representation of the bandwidth constrained image processing interface 3000 on a display device... which can then be displayed using the GUI for interaction by an operator.” [0059].
Rationale: Pedersen teaches management circuitry, i.e., controller or client device, that controls a display to present visual images to an operator.
based on the image data,
See at least: “...improving the way in which image data (used to produce visual images) is processed... the ability of vehicle operators and others who rely on visual images to provide assistance to vehicles is facilitated.” [0011].
Rationale: Pedersen teaches that the display is specifically generated based on the image data transmitted from the machine.
Motivation to Combine Ross and Pedersen
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross and Pedersen before them, to modify Ross’s backend management system that coordinates routes for a fleet of AVs using network resource or heat maps and AV-provided network-condition data by incorporating Pedersen’s bandwidth-constrained image-processing and data-prioritization techniques, including prioritizing transmission of image-related state data when a data transfer rate does not satisfy a criterion and controlling a display or GUI to present images based on received image data, because Ross already operates in the same technical context of network-limited communications with autonomous vehicles and relies on wireless-network metrics to support fleet operations, while Pedersen expressly addresses the known problem of maintaining usable operator-facing visual information and image-based assistance under constrained or changing network-transfer rates. Implementing Pedersen’s priority policy and display-control interface within Ross’s backend or teleoperation communications framework would have been a straightforward substitution of known communication-management and UI techniques for predictable improvement, namely, enabling the backend or operator to continue receiving and displaying usable image data under degraded bandwidth conditions while preserving Ross’s existing route coordination and network-aware fleet-management functions, without requiring changes to Ross’s fundamental backend architecture.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Ross and Pedersen
Ross and Pedersen do not explicitly disclose:
and hold other information of the information transmitted by the autonomously moveable work machine other than the image data in a memory,
and transmit the other information held in the memory
Disclosure by Stenneth
Stenneth discloses:
and hold other information of the information transmitted by the autonomously moveable work machine other than the image data in a memory
See at least: “...determine whether to cause... (a) a transmission of sensor data... (b) a caching of the sensor data prior to a batch transmission of the sensor data to the at least one receiving entity, or (c) a combination thereof.” (Abstract); “...a sensor data relating to the trunk of the at least one vehicle is not critical and can be archived before it can be sent to the cloud.” [0023].
Rationale: Stenneth teaches prioritizing sensor data and holding, i.e., caching or archiving, non-critical information, i.e., other information, in memory when immediate transmission is not required.
and transmit the other information held in the memory
See at least: “the X sensor data may be removed from the cache and placed on the channel before the Y sensor data.” [0058].
Rationale: Stenneth teaches that data held in the cache, i.e., memory, is subsequently removed from the cache and transmitted, i.e., placed on the channel, to the receiving entity.
a section in which the wireless communication environment data is missing
See at least: Stenneth identifies a “network detection sensor for detecting wireless signals” [0020] and teaches that its extrapolation module processes mapped cells “based, at least in part, on a determination that the at least one cell has inadequate sensor data.” [0036].
Rationale: Stenneth expressly treats detected wireless signals as sensor data and identifies mapped cells having inadequate sensor data. Within the Ross wireless-environment map, such a cell corresponds to a section in which the wireless communication environment data is missing or insufficient for the section.
and a section in which the wireless communication environment data is not updated
See at least: “Each cell [1111] maintains several pieces of information including ... amount and time of sensor data it received,” and “there is a need to extrapolate sensor data for cells which have stale or limited sensor data from cells that have current and stable sensor data.” [0059]–[0060].
Rationale: Stenneth tracks the amount and time of data received for each mapped cell and expressly identifies cells having stale data. A cell whose data are stale is a section in which the mapped data have not been updated.
exceeding a predetermined time
See at least: “maximum (max) cache duration [1007] determines the maximum time one or more sensor data should be stored in the local cache ... Any sensor data that exceeds the max cache duration is pruned from the cache.” [0058].
Rationale: Stenneth applies a predefined maximum-duration threshold to determine whether stored sensor data have exceeded an allowable age. Applying that disclosed time threshold to Stenneth’s cell-specific timestamps predictably identifies a mapped section whose data have not been updated for longer than a predetermined time.
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to further modify the combined Ross–Pedersen system by incorporating Stenneth’s explicit caching, archiving, and batch-transmission control for lower-priority sensor data, including determining whether to transmit immediately versus cache prior to batch transmission and later removing cached data and placing it on the channel, because Ross already depends on continuous vehicle-to-backend communications and Pedersen expressly prioritizes image-related data when bandwidth is constrained, i.e., when the data-transfer rate falls below a criterion, which predictably creates a need to temporarily defer or buffer non-image, i.e., “other,” information during low-throughput conditions. Stenneth provides a directly compatible, well-known solution—caching non-critical data in memory and scheduling its later transmission—so that bandwidth is reserved for higher-priority image-related information during degradation, while the deferred data is reliably delivered once communications improve. This combination yields predictable results, including improved bandwidth utilization, reduced packet loss or congestion, and improved continuity of image-based operator assistance, using established techniques in the same field of vehicle-telemetry transmission management and does not require undue redesign beyond routine integration of cache-and-batch logic into the existing transmission control of the backend or vehicle communication pipeline.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to perform the Claim-8 management method such that Ross’s route-formulation logic is informed by Stenneth’s per-cell data-sufficiency and staleness teachings, including identifying cells with inadequate or stale data and applying a known maximum-duration threshold, because the references address compatible autonomous-vehicle telemetry and wireless-communication problems. The combined method predictably improves the completeness and freshness of Ross’s wireless communication environment map by preferentially including sections needing missing or stale map data in a movement path, using Ross’s existing route-generation and rerouting functions and Stenneth’s existing cell-status and data-aging information.
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth establishes the management method of Claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 9.
Disclosure by Ross
Ross discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the management method
See at least: “These instructions may be carried on a computer-readable medium. Machines shown or described with figures below provide examples of processing resources and computer-readable mediums on which instructions for implementing examples disclosed herein can be carried and/or executed.” (Col. 4, ll. 12–17)
Rationale: The “computer-readable medium” is described as a medium on which executable “instructions” are carried or stored, i.e., a storage medium rather than a transient signal. It further corresponds to storing a program because the “instructions” carried on the medium are program instructions. It also corresponds to causing a computer to execute the management method because the same passage links the “instructions” on the medium to being “executed” by “processing resources,” meaning the program instructions, when executed by the computer’s processors, cause the computer to perform or execute the disclosed management method.
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to provide a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the management method established for Claim 8, because Ross already teaches implementing its backend or vehicle coordination functionality via executable “instructions” carried on a “computer-readable medium” and “executed” by “processing resources,” and Pedersen and Stenneth likewise operate in the same computer-implemented vehicle-management and telemetry environment where the disclosed control and coordination functions are realized as software executed by computing systems, such that embodying the combined management method as program instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium would have been a predictable and routine implementation choice for deploying the method on the involved computing platforms.
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth establishes the management system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 10.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Ross
Ross does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the autonomously moveable work machine is further configured to extend a transmission interval of the image data
based on the decrease in communication speed of the wireless communication environment from the first level to the second level.
Disclosure by Stenneth
Stenneth discloses:
wherein the autonomously moveable work machine is further configured to extend a transmission interval of the image data
See at least: “frequency for sensor data may be changed based on the contextual information, for example, a user driving at 10 miles per hour may not need to collect sensor data as compared to the user driving at 100 miles per hour.” [0023].
Rationale: This teaches that a vehicle system can change the frequency of sensor-data collection or transmission, i.e., “frequency … may be changed.” A lower frequency necessarily corresponds to a longer time between successive transmissions, i.e., extending a transmission interval. In the combined Claim 1 system where the work machine transmits image data, a PHOSITA would treat image data as a type of sensor data and apply the same frequency or interval control to image-data transmission as a predictable implementation choice.
Disclosure by Pedersen
Pedersen discloses:
based on the decrease in communication speed of the wireless communication environment from the first level to the second level.
See at least: “The disclosed technology provides a way to determine when a data transfer rate does not satisfy a data transfer rate criterion (e.g., the data transfer rate is low enough or below a predetermined threshold that results in the images based on image data being excessively degraded...)” [0014].
Rationale: A “predetermined threshold” defines a first communication-speed level, i.e., above threshold, and a second communication-speed level, i.e., below threshold. Determining the rate is “below” the threshold corresponds to a decrease from the first level to the second level, and the system’s responsive processing is performed based on that determination.
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to configure the autonomously movable work machine of the combined system, as established in Claim 1, such that it extends a transmission interval of the image data, as taught by Stenneth, in response to the detected decrease in communication speed of the wireless communication environment from the first level to the second level. A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the specific transmission-interval control taught by Stenneth, i.e., changing the frequency of data transmission, with the precise bandwidth-degradation trigger taught by Pedersen, i.e., the data-transfer rate falling below a threshold, because both references address the common technical problem of managing data flow from vehicles under variable network conditions. Applying Stenneth’s known technique of adjusting transmission timing in direct response to the bandwidth condition detected by Pedersen’s method is a predictable design choice to conserve bandwidth and maintain link reliability during periods of poor connectivity, yielding the expected benefit of a more robust fleet-management system.
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth establishes the management system of claim 1, which is the basis for claim 11.
Disclosure by Ross
Ross discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry formulates the operation plan
See at least: “For each pick-up request or trip, the backend system can perform an optimization operation to determine an optimal route for an AV to travel...” (Col. 2, ll. 7–10)
See also: “...the backend system 300 can utilize the updated spectrum heat map to (i) determine the optimal travel route 363 from the pick-up location 317 to the destination 319...” (Col. 15, ll. 2–5)
Rationale: Ross’s processor-based backend system performs an optimization operation to determine an optimal route. The optimal route corresponds to the operation plan formulated by the processing circuitry.
taking into additional consideration of the wireless communication environment
See at least: “The backend system can determine optimal routes for communications when AVs are sent out to respective destinations based on any number of the following: base station locations, network types, connectivity costs, mesh networking opportunities, road traffic, network latency, coverage areas, available bandwidth, and the like.” (Col. 3, ll. 28–34)
See also: “The network resource maps 332 can comprise one or more spectrum heat maps that indicate network coverage strength for network types originating from base stations located throughout the given region.” (Col. 14, ll. 28–31)
Rationale: Ross expressly formulates an optimal route using multiple wireless-environment variables, including network latency, coverage areas, available bandwidth, network types, and connectivity costs. These variables constitute the wireless communication environment and are considered in addition to the request, destination, map, and other routing information used to formulate the operation plan.
and a road surface condition
See at least: “The alerts 169 can include information ranging from emergency communications, road accident or traffic alerts, construction alerts, road quality alerts, and the like.” (Col. 7, ll. 19–21)
See also: “the backend system 300 selects the AV based on a shortest ETA by accounting for road conditions and traffic.” (Col. 20, ll. 61–62)
Rationale: Ross expressly acquires and uses “road quality alerts” and accounts for “road conditions” in managing vehicle assignments and travel. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, road-quality information identifies the physical condition or traversability of a road and therefore corresponds to a road surface condition.
of each section of the working area.
See at least: “In various examples, the stored resource or heat maps 332 can be in varying resolutions and/or may refer specifically to road segments or even road lanes throughout the given region.” (Col. 14, ll. 32–35)
See also: “The backend system can determine optimal routes for communications when AVs are sent out to respective destinations based on any number of the following: base station locations, network types, connectivity costs, mesh networking opportunities, road traffic, network latency, coverage areas, available bandwidth, and the like.” (Col. 3, ll. 28–34)
Rationale: Ross divides the given region, i.e., working area, into individual road segments or road lanes, i.e., sections, and evaluates route-related conditions along those portions of the region. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that wireless coverage, road conditions, and road-quality alerts must be associated with the particular road segment or location to which they relate for those conditions to be used meaningfully in route selection. Thus, Ross teaches, or at minimum would have suggested, considering the wireless communication environment and road surface condition of each section of the working area.
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to configure the combined management system established for claim 1 such that the processing circuitry formulates the operation plan taking into additional consideration the wireless communication environment and a road surface condition of each section of the working area. Ross already formulates optimal routes using wireless-network conditions associated with particular road segments, receives road-quality alerts, and accounts for road conditions and traffic when managing the fleet. Applying the same available road-quality information to the route-formulation operation, together with the section-specific wireless-environment information already used by Ross, would have been the use of known routing inputs in Ross’s existing multi-factor optimization process.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because selecting a movement path requires determining both whether reliable vehicle communication can be maintained and whether the road sections are physically suitable for traversal. Considering both conditions for each candidate road section would predictably improve communication continuity, route safety, travel reliability, and operational efficiency. Each item of information would continue to perform its known function: the wireless-environment data would identify communication conditions, the road-quality data would identify physical road conditions, and Ross’s optimizer would use those inputs to select an appropriate route. The modification therefore would have produced no more than the predictable result of a route selected using both communication quality and road-surface suitability.
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth establishes the management method of claim 8, which is the basis for claim 12.
Disclosure by Ross
Ross discloses:
wherein the operation plan is formulated
See at least: “For each pick-up request or trip, the backend system can perform an optimization operation to determine an optimal route for an AV to travel...” (Col. 2, ll. 7–10)
See also: “...the backend system 300 can utilize the updated spectrum heat map to (i) determine the optimal travel route 363 from the pick-up location 317 to the destination 319...” (Col. 15, ll. 2–5)
Rationale: Ross performs a management method in which an optimization operation determines an optimal route. Determining the optimal route corresponds to formulating the operation plan.
taking into additional consideration of the wireless communication environment
See at least: “The backend system can determine optimal routes for communications when AVs are sent out to respective destinations based on any number of the following: base station locations, network types, connectivity costs, mesh networking opportunities, road traffic, network latency, coverage areas, available bandwidth, and the like.” (Col. 3, ll. 28–34)
See also: “The network resource maps 332 can comprise one or more spectrum heat maps that indicate network coverage strength for network types originating from base stations located throughout the given region.” (Col. 14, ll. 28–31)
Rationale: Ross formulates the optimal route using multiple wireless-environment variables, including network latency, coverage areas, available bandwidth, network types, and connectivity costs. The wireless communication environment is therefore considered in addition to the request, destination, map, and other information used in formulating the operation plan.
and a road surface condition
See at least: “The alerts 169 can include information ranging from emergency communications, road accident or traffic alerts, construction alerts, road quality alerts, and the like.” (Col. 7, ll. 19–21)
See also: “the backend system 300 selects the AV based on a shortest ETA by accounting for road conditions and traffic.” (Col. 20, ll. 61–62)
Rationale: Ross expressly receives “road quality alerts” and accounts for “road conditions” in its vehicle-management method. Road-quality information identifies the physical condition or traversability of a road and therefore corresponds to a road surface condition.
of each section of the working area.
See at least: “In various examples, the stored resource or heat maps 332 can be in varying resolutions and/or may refer specifically to road segments or even road lanes throughout the given region.” (Col. 14, ll. 32–35)
See also: “The backend system can determine optimal routes for communications when AVs are sent out to respective destinations based on any number of the following: base station locations, network types, connectivity costs, mesh networking opportunities, road traffic, network latency, coverage areas, available bandwidth, and the like.” (Col. 3, ll. 28–34)
Rationale: Ross represents the given region, i.e., working area, as individual road segments or road lanes, i.e., sections, and evaluates conditions relevant to candidate routes through those portions of the region. A person of ordinary skill would have understood that wireless coverage and road-quality information would be associated with the particular road segment to which the information pertains so that it could be used in formulating the route. Ross therefore teaches, or at minimum would have suggested, considering the wireless communication environment and road surface condition of each section of the working area.
Motivation to Combine Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth before them, to perform the management method established for claim 8 such that the operation plan is formulated taking into additional consideration the wireless communication environment and a road surface condition of each section of the working area. Ross already determines optimal routes using section-specific wireless-network information, receives road-quality alerts, and accounts for road conditions and traffic in managing vehicle travel. Using the available road-quality information as an additional input to the same route-formulation process would have required only the routine application of a known routing criterion to Ross’s existing multi-factor optimization method.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to evaluate both the wireless communication environment and the road surface condition of each candidate section because a route that provides adequate connectivity may nevertheless be unsuitable due to a degraded road surface, while a physically traversable route may be unsuitable for the continuous communications and image-data transmission required by the combined system. Considering both conditions would predictably permit the route optimizer to select a movement path that supports reliable communication while avoiding unsuitable road sections. The resulting method would merely use Ross’s known wireless and road-condition information for their established purposes in Ross’s existing route-optimization process, yielding the predictable result of improved route safety, connectivity, and operational reliability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Amendments and Scope of the Response
Applicant canceled claim 2 and incorporated the substance of former claim 2 into independent claims 1 and 8. Claim 3 was amended to depend directly from claim 1. Applicant also added new claims 11 and 12, which substantially combine the additional wireless-communication-environment and road-surface-condition limitations separately recited in claims 4 and 5.
For claims 1 and 8, the rejection places the former claim 2 limitations within the respective claim mappings and maintains the same combination of Ross, Pedersen, and Stenneth applied in the non-final Office action. The prior-art combination and operative theory of obviousness have not changed. Claims 11 and 12 are separately addressed using the same prior-art combination and factual findings previously applied to the corresponding limitations of claims 4 and 5.
Independent Claims 1 and 8
Applicant argues that the applied combination does not teach or suggest formulating the operation plan such that a section having missing wireless communication environment data and a section whose data have not been updated for longer than a predetermined time are preferentially included in the movement path. Applicant further argues that Ross would actively exclude such sections, that Stenneth merely requests information from vehicles already traveling in areas having insufficient data or extrapolates information from neighboring cells, and that Ross therefore teaches away from the proposed combination. These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The non-final Office action expressly addressed the limitations now incorporated from former claim 2. Ross was relied upon for formulating an optimal route, representing road segments on a network-resource or spectrum heat map, targeting network-limited areas, and routing or rerouting selected autonomous vehicles through those areas. See Ross, col. 2, ll. 7–10 and 56–65; col. 14, ll. 28–35; col. 26, ll. 14–31. Stenneth was relied upon for the complementary geographically indexed data-status teachings, including mapped cells having no, inadequate, limited, or stale sensor data; the amount and time of sensor data received for each cell; and a maximum-duration threshold for determining when sensor data have become impermissibly old. See Stenneth [0020], [0036], and [0058]–[0060]. The non-final Office action therefore explained how the combined teachings account for the disputed limitations.
The Office does not rely on Ross’s “network-limited areas” as themselves expressly establishing sections having missing or stale wireless communication environment data. Ross supplies the route-generation, vehicle-selection, routing, and rerouting mechanisms. Stenneth supplies the geographically indexed determination that a mapped cell has no, inadequate, limited, or stale sensor data. The proposed combination uses Stenneth’s cell-level data-sufficiency and freshness information as an additional input to Ross’s existing route optimizer so that an available vehicle traverses a deficient section and obtains the missing or outdated wireless communication environment data.
Stenneth expressly identifies a “network detection sensor for detecting wireless signals” as one of the sensors within its sensor-data framework. See Stenneth [0020]. Stenneth further teaches determining that a mapped cell has “inadequate sensor data,” maintaining for each cell the “amount and time of sensor data it received,” distinguishing cells having “stale or limited sensor data” from cells having “current and stable sensor data,” and identifying an empty cell that “does not have any telematics sensor data.” See Stenneth [0036] and [0059]–[0060]. Accordingly, Stenneth’s generally applicable cell-sufficiency, timestamp, and staleness teachings would have been understood to apply to data generated by its expressly enumerated network-detection sensor, including data representing detected wireless signals.
Stenneth describes its maximum-cache-duration threshold in the context of determining whether locally cached sensor data have exceeded an allowable age. See Stenneth [0058]. Stenneth does not expressly state that this threshold is applied to the last-update time maintained for each mapped cell. Nevertheless, Stenneth expressly maintains the amount and time of sensor data received for each cell, distinguishes stale cell data from current cell data, and applies a predetermined maximum-duration threshold to determine when sensor data have become impermissibly old. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply that disclosed data-aging threshold to the cell-specific receipt times maintained by Stenneth to determine when the wireless-signal data for a mapped cell had not been updated for longer than the permissible period. This would have been a predictable application of Stenneth’s existing data-aging criterion to its expressly maintained cell timestamps.
Applicant’s contention that Stenneth does not expressly instruct a vehicle traveling in a surrounding area to change its route does not identify a deficiency in the rejection. The claims do not require changing an already established route of a vehicle traveling in a surrounding area. Claims 1 and 8 require formulating the operation plan so that the identified sections are preferentially included in the movement path. Ross supplies the route-formulation and vehicle-routing mechanisms, while Stenneth supplies the cell-level determination that data are absent, inadequate, limited, or stale. Stenneth need not independently disclose the complete route-formulation operation supplied by Ross.
The fact that Stenneth also discloses requesting data from vehicles already located in a cell or extrapolating data from neighboring cells does not negate the proposed combination. Those disclosures represent alternative or additional techniques for addressing deficient cell data. They do not criticize, discredit, or preclude using a vehicle to obtain data directly from a deficient cell. Moreover, Stenneth determines the importance of different regions based on the amount of available sensor data and the current or future paths of vehicles. See Stenneth [0045] and [0059]. These teachings reinforce that geographically indexed data sufficiency and vehicle paths are related considerations within Stenneth’s system.
The obviousness inquiry concerns what the combined teachings would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not whether each reference independently contains the entire claimed arrangement. One cannot establish nonobviousness by considering the references individually where the rejection is based on their combined teachings. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012); MPEP 2145, subsection IV.
Ross Does Not Teach Away
Applicant’s teaching-away position rests on the premise that Ross would necessarily exclude areas having uncertain or limited network information. Ross does not require that result. Ross expressly states that the backend system can “target these network-limited areas and route selected AVs so that AVs traveling through these areas can continue to communicate” and that the vehicles can be “timed, routed, and rerouted” to mitigate limited network availability. Ross, col. 2, ll. 56–65.
Ross further teaches identifying network-limited areas along an optimal route and sending, rerouting, or commanding additional vehicles to intercept the selected vehicle at those areas. See Ross, col. 26, ll. 14–31. Ross also explains that autonomous vehicles may travel through network-limited areas or dead zones and that these occurrences may be identified when the optimal routes are calculated. See Ross, col. 16, ll. 15–24. Ross therefore contemplates traversal of communication-deficient areas and provides mechanisms for maintaining communication while vehicles traverse those areas. Ross does not criticize, discredit, or discourage such traversal.
Nor would using Stenneth’s missing or stale-cell status change Ross’s principle of operation or render Ross inoperable for its intended purpose. Ross would continue to receive a request, formulate a route, assign a vehicle, collect vehicle-generated network data, update its network-resource map, and coordinate vehicle communications. Stenneth’s cell-sufficiency and freshness information would merely provide an additional route-selection objective for Ross’s existing optimizer.
The proposed modification therefore uses known data-status and routing techniques to improve a similar autonomous-vehicle management system in a predictable manner. It does not require physically incorporating Stenneth’s particular architecture into Ross. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); MPEP 2145, subsection III.
A reference teaches away when its disclosure would have discouraged a person of ordinary skill from following the claimed path or led that person in a divergent direction. Ross contains no such discouragement. At most, Applicant infers that Ross would prefer avoiding areas having uncertain network conditions. That inference is inconsistent with Ross’s express disclosure of targeting network-limited areas and routing or rerouting vehicles through those areas. Furthermore, a disclosed preference or alternative ordinarily does not constitute teaching away absent criticism, discrediting, or discouragement of the proposed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP 2145, subsection X.D. Applicant’s teaching-away argument is therefore not persuasive.
Predictable Combination Without Hindsight
The reason for the proposed combination arises from the references themselves. Ross depends on vehicle-acquired network information to maintain and update a network-resource map and expressly possesses the capability to select, route, and reroute vehicles through identified geographic areas. Stenneth identifies mapped cells having absent, inadequate, limited, or stale sensor data, records when cell data were received, and determines the importance of geographic regions based on the amount of available sensor data and the current or future paths of vehicles.
A person of ordinary skill seeking to maintain the completeness and freshness of Ross’s vehicle-derived wireless communication environment map would have recognized the benefit of using Stenneth’s cell-level data-sufficiency and freshness status as an additional input to Ross’s route optimizer. The resulting operation plan would preferentially include a section for which wireless-signal data are missing or have not been updated for longer than the applicable freshness threshold, thereby allowing the assigned vehicle to collect updated data while traversing that section.
Each reference would continue to perform its established function. Ross would formulate and control the vehicle route and update its network-resource map using vehicle-supplied data. Stenneth’s teachings would identify mapped sections requiring new or updated sensor data. The combination would predictably improve the completeness and freshness of the wireless communication environment map without changing the operating principle of either system.
The proposed modification therefore uses Ross’s established route-control and vehicle-based map-updating capabilities to address the geographically indexed data-sufficiency and freshness conditions expressly identified by Stenneth. The reason for the modification arises from the complementary problems and functions disclosed by the references themselves, rather than from Applicant’s disclosure. The conclusion of obviousness is consequently supported by articulated reasoning having a rational underpinning and is not based on impermissible hindsight. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417–18 (2007); MPEP 2143, subsection I.A.
Dependent Claims 3–7 and 9–12
Applicant states generally that dependent claims 3–7, 9, and 10 are patentable by virtue of their dependencies and additional limitations. Applicant does not, however, identify a separate error in the specific factual findings or reasons set forth for the additional limitations of those claims. The rejection separately maps each dependent claim and provides an articulated reason for the applied combination. Because Applicant’s arguments concerning independent claims 1 and 8 are not persuasive, and no distinct substantive argument has been presented against the additional limitations of claims 3–7, 9, and 10, the rejection of those claims is maintained.
Applicant added new claims 11 and 12 but presented no separate substantive argument concerning their additional limitations. Claim 11 depends from claim 1, and claim 12 depends from claim 8. The claims substantially combine the wireless-communication-environment consideration separately recited in claim 4 with the road-surface-condition consideration separately recited in claim 5. Ross teaches formulating an optimal route using network latency, network coverage, available bandwidth, road traffic, road conditions, and road-quality information associated with the working region. The rejection separately maps the limitations of claims 11 and 12 and explains why using both wireless-communication conditions and road-surface conditions as inputs to Ross’s multi-factor route optimizer would have been a predictable application of known route-selection information. Accordingly, claims 11 and 12 are not rendered patentable merely by their dependencies or by combining limitations separately addressed in claims 4 and 5.
Examiner Conclusion
After reconsideration of the amended claims, the applied prior art, and Applicant’s remarks, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of claims 1 and 3–12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ross in view of Pedersen and further in view of Stenneth is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 5PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
