Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/15/2025. Claims 1, 13, and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 6-7, 9-13, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 20220229439 A1, hereinafter “Ferguson”, in view of US 20240169573 A1, hereinafter “Shoeb”.
Regarding claim 1, Ferguson discloses A computer-implemented method (See [0027]-[0033], the vehicle contains a computer. See [0058]-[0062], the computer implements the method.) for defining a geo- defense area related to presence of a roadworker entity (See Fig. 11 and [0072]-[0076], the method comprises defining a second construction object, which is a roadworker entity, and then defining the area of the construction zone, i.e. a geo-defense area, in response to identifying the presence of the object.), the computer-implemented method comprising:
identifying a roadwork event within a roadwork zone region of a road segment (See [0004]-[0006], the method identifies an active roadwork zone, i.e. a roadwork event. A roadwork event inherently takes place in a roadwork zone region of a road segment.);
obtaining sensor data from one or more probe apparatuses traveling along the road segment (See [0024]-[0025], the vehicle, i.e. probe, uses its sensors to detect a construction zone and classify it as active while driving along the road. The sensor data must be obtained before it can be used.);
subsequent to identifying the roadwork event within the roadwork zone region,(See [0024]-[0026], the active construction zone, i.e. roadwork zone region having a roadwork event, is detected by a first vehicle. The vehicle’s sensors, i.e. sensor data, are used to detect the roadwork zone. A second vehicle, or first vehicle at a later time, detects a construction object, i.e. roadworker entity, associated with the construction zone, i.e. within the roadwork zone region, and uses the map to determine that the construction object is included, i.e. within, the construction zone. The broadest reasonable interpretation of roadwork event read in light of the specification comprises when workers or equipment are currently present and performing tasks related to construction and when the site is idle but the equipment is present. This means that the construction object, i.e. roadworker entity, is necessarily identified during the roadwork event.);
defining a geo-defense area related to the roadworker entity based at least on part on map data related to the roadwork zone region and location data related to the roadworker entity (See [0026], the second vehicle uses the map data to determine whether the construction object it identified is within a construction zone, i.e. uses the map data and location data related to the roadworker entity in the following steps. The second vehicle can then reclassify the construction zone. See [0005], classifying the construction zone includes determining the area of the construction zone. This is defining a geo-defense area related to the roadworker entity.); and
providing an indication of the geo-defense area to an electronic control unit of one or more autonomous vehicles that is configured to adjust at least an autonomous driving mode of the one or more autonomous vehicles along the road segment based at least in part on the indication (See [0066]; map updates based on the identification and classification of construction zones are shared with other autonomous vehicles. See [0009], the detailed map information comprising the construction zone is used for controlling the driving behavior of vehicles of an area of the construction zone. This is facilitating navigation of autonomous vehicles. An indication of the construction zone is necessarily sent to the electronic control unit in order to control the vehicle. See [0004]-[0006] the autonomous driving mode of the vehicle is set based on the classification of the construction zone.).
Ferguson does not explicitly disclose (ii) deemed vulnerable to an incident with a vehicle.
Shoeb renders obvious (ii) deemed vulnerable to an incident with a vehicle (See [0036]-[0038]. A close encounter between a UAV, i.e. a vehicle, and an obstacle is detected is detected in the vehicle’s video, i.e. sensor data. A geofence is created around the obstacle in order to prevent other UAVs in the area from colliding with the obstacle. This is because the obstacle is deemed vulnerable to an incident with a vehicle. The broadest reasonable interpretation of roadwork event read in light of the specification comprises when workers or equipment are currently present and performing tasks related to construction and when the site is idle but the equipment is present. This means that the construction object, i.e. roadworker entity, is necessarily identified during the roadwork event).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for detection zones based on identifying construction objects disclosed by Ferguson to include determining whether the objects detected are vulnerable to collision Shoeb. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide information for safe operation of other vehicles while avoiding use computer resources to update maps when obstacles not likely to cause collision are present, as suggested by Shoeb at [0020]-[0022].
Regarding claim 6, Ferguson combined with Shoeb discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson further discloses wherein identifying the roadwork event comprises identifying the roadwork event based at least in part on high-definition (HD) map data related to the road segment (See [0046]-[0048], the system uses highly detailed maps identifying features necessary for navigation of the vehicle, i.e. HD map data, in addition to the sensor data. See [0024]-[0025], the map data is used in determining whether there is an active construction zone, i.e. a roadwork event.).
Regarding claim 7, Ferguson combined with Shoeb discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson additionally discloses wherein defining the geo-defense area comprises defining a geometry for the geo-defense area based at least on part on the map data related to the roadwork zone region and the location data related to the roadworker entity (See [0026], the second vehicle uses the map data to determine whether the construction object it identified is within a construction zone, i.e. uses the map data and location data related to the roadworker entity in the following steps. The second vehicle can then reclassify the construction zone. See [0005], classifying the construction zone includes determining the area of the construction zone. This is defining a geometry for the geo-defense area.).
Regarding claim 9, Ferguson combined with Shoeb renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson further discloses wherein defining the geo-defense area comprises defining speed limit information for the geo-defense area based at least on part on the map data related to the roadwork zone region and the location data related to the roadworker entity (See [0026], the second vehicle detects a construction object, i.e. roadworker entity, and accesses a detailed map to determine whether the construction object’s location corresponds to a construction zone, i.e. uses map data related to a roadwork zone region and location data related to the roadworker entity. The second vehicle can drive slowly if it determines that the construction zone is active. The second vehicle reclassifies the construction zone. See [0005], classifying the construction zone includes determining the area of the construction zone, meaning the second vehicle defines a geo-defense area. Examiner asserts that driving more slowly in response to the same data used to define the geometry of the geo-defense area means that the vehicle defines speed limit information for itself as part of the procedure for defining the geo-defense area.)
Regarding claim 10, Ferguson combined with Shoeb renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson further discloses generating a notification for the one or more autonomous vehicles based at least in part on the geo-defense area (See [0060], the driver is warned, i.e. notified, when a construction object is identified. The construction object is part of the geo-defense region. This is therefore a notification based at least in part on the geo-defense area.).
Regarding claim 11, Ferguson combined with Shoeb renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson further discloses determining a navigation route along the road segment for the one or more autonomous vehicles based at least in part on the geo-defense area (See [0035]-[0036] and [0039], controlling the vehicle can include controlling the direction, acceleration, and deceleration of the vehicle. See [0009]-[0011], the vehicle is controlled by the computer within the construction zone area, i.e. the geo-defense area, depending on how the construction zone is classified, i.e. based at least on part on the geo-defense area. Controlling the vehicle’s path inherently comprises determining a navigation route along the road segment it is operating on.).
Regarding claim 12, Ferguson combined with Shoeb renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson further discloses configuring an autonomous driving level for the one or more autonomous vehicles based at least in part on the geo-defense area (See [0006]-[0007], the system determines whether to drive the vehicle in autonomous or manual driving, i.e. configures an autonomous driving level, based on the construction zone and its classification as active or inactive, i.e. based at least in part on the geo-defense area.).
Regarding claim 13, Ferguson discloses An apparatus comprising processing circuitry and at least one memory including computer program code instructions, the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed by the processing circuity, cause the apparatus to (See [0027]-[0033], the vehicle contains a computer, i.e. an apparatus. Computers inherently comprise processing circuitry and memory including code instructions. See [0058]-[0062], the computer implements the method):
identify a roadwork event within a roadwork zone region of a road segment (See [0004]-[0006], the method identifies an active roadwork zone, i.e. a roadwork event. A roadwork event inherently takes place in a roadwork zone region of a road segment.);
obtain sensor data from one or more probe apparatuses traveling along the road segment (See [0024]-[0025], the vehicle, i.e. probe, uses its sensors to detect a construction zone and classify it as active while driving along the road. The sensor data must be obtained before it can be used.);
subsequent to identification of the roadwork event within the roadwork zone region,(See [0024]-[0026], the active construction zone, i.e. roadwork zone region having a roadwork event, is detected by a first vehicle. The vehicle’s sensors, i.e. sensor data, are used to detect the roadwork zone. A second vehicle, or first vehicle at a later time, detects a construction object, i.e. roadworker entity, associated with the construction zone, i.e. within the roadwork zone region, and uses the map to determine that the construction object is included, i.e. within, the construction zone. The broadest reasonable interpretation of roadwork event read in light of the specification comprises when workers or equipment are currently present and performing tasks related to construction and when the site is idle but the equipment is present. This means that the construction object, i.e. roadworker entity, is necessarily identified during the roadwork event.);
define a geo-defense area related to the roadworker entity based at least on part on map data related to the roadwork zone region and location data related to the roadworker entity (See [0026], the second vehicle uses the map data to determine whether the construction object it identified is within a construction zone, i.e. uses the map data and location data related to the roadworker entity in the following steps. The second vehicle can then reclassify the construction zone. See [0005], classifying the construction zone includes determining the area of the construction zone. This is defining a geo-defense area related to the roadworker entity.); and
provide an indication of the geo-defense area to an electronic control unit of one or more autonomous vehicles that is configured to adjust at least an autonomous driving mode of the one or more autonomous vehicles along the road segment based at least in part on the indication (See [0066]; map updates based on the identification and classification of construction zones are shared with other autonomous vehicles. See [0009], the detailed map information comprising the construction zone is used for controlling the driving behavior of vehicles of an area of the construction zone. This is facilitating navigation of autonomous vehicles. An indication of the construction zone is necessarily sent to the electronic control unit in order to control the vehicle. See [0004]-[0006] the autonomous driving mode of the vehicle is set based on the classification of the construction zone.).
Ferguson does not explicitly disclose (ii) deemed vulnerable to an incident with a vehicle.
Shoeb renders obvious (ii) deemed vulnerable to an incident with a vehicle (See [0036]-[0038]. A close encounter between a UAV, i.e. a vehicle, and an obstacle is detected is detected in the vehicle’s video, i.e. sensor data. A geofence is created around the obstacle in order to prevent other UAVs in the area from colliding with the obstacle. This is because the obstacle is deemed vulnerable to an incident with a vehicle. The broadest reasonable interpretation of roadwork event read in light of the specification comprises when workers or equipment are currently present and performing tasks related to construction and when the site is idle but the equipment is present. This means that the construction object, i.e. roadworker entity, is necessarily identified during the roadwork event).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for detection zones based on identifying construction objects disclosed by Ferguson to include determining whether the objects detected are vulnerable to collision Shoeb. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide information for safe operation of other vehicles while avoiding use computer resources to update maps when obstacles not likely to cause collision are present, as suggested by Shoeb at [0020]-[0022].
Regarding claim 17, Ferguson combined with Shoeb discloses all the limitations of claim 13. Ferguson additionally discloses define a geometry for the geo-defense area based at least on part on the map data related to the roadwork zone region and the location data related to the roadworker entity (See [0026], the second vehicle uses the map data to determine whether the construction object it identified is within a construction zone, i.e. uses the map data and location data related to the roadworker entity in the following steps. The second vehicle can then reclassify the construction zone. See [0005], classifying the construction zone includes determining the area of the construction zone. This is defining a geometry for the geo-defense area.).
Regarding claim 19, Ferguson combined with Shoeb renders obvious the limitations of claim 13. Ferguson further discloses define speed limit information for the geo-defense area based at least on part on the map data related to the roadwork zone region and the location data related to the roadworker entity (See [0026], the second vehicle detects a construction object, i.e. roadworker entity, and accesses a detailed map to determine whether the construction object’s location corresponds to a construction zone, i.e. uses map data related to a roadwork zone region and location data related to the roadworker entity. The second vehicle can drive slowly if it determines that the construction zone is active. The second vehicle reclassifies the construction zone. See [0005], classifying the construction zone includes determining the area of the construction zone, meaning the second vehicle defines a geo-defense area. Examiner asserts that driving more slowly in response to the same data used to define the geometry of the geo-defense area means that the vehicle defines speed limit information for itself as part of the procedure for defining the geo-defense area.)
Regarding claim 20, Ferguson discloses A computer program product comprising at least one non- transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable program code instructions stored therein, the computer-executable program code instructions comprising program code instructions to (See [0027]-[0033], the vehicle contains a computer, i.e. computer program product. Computers inherently comprise processing circuitry and memory including code instructions. The instructions can be stored on a hard-drive, which is non-transitory. See [0058]-[0062], the computer implements the metho):
identify a roadwork event within a roadwork zone region of a road segment (See [0004]-[0006], the method identifies an active roadwork zone, i.e. a roadwork event. A roadwork event inherently takes place in a roadwork zone region of a road segment.);
obtain sensor data from one or more probe apparatuses traveling along the road segment (See [0024]-[0025], the vehicle, i.e. probe, uses its sensors to detect a construction zone and classify it as active while driving along the road. The sensor data must be obtained before it can be used.);
subsequent to identification of the roadwork event within the roadwork zone region,(See [0024]-[0026], the active construction zone, i.e. roadwork zone region having a roadwork event, is detected by a first vehicle. The vehicle’s sensors, i.e. sensor data, are used to detect the roadwork zone. A second vehicle, or first vehicle at a later time, detects a construction object, i.e. roadworker entity, associated with the construction zone, i.e. within the roadwork zone region, and uses the map to determine that the construction object is included, i.e. within, the construction zone. The broadest reasonable interpretation of roadwork event read in light of the specification comprises when workers or equipment are currently present and performing tasks related to construction and when the site is idle but the equipment is present. This means that the construction object, i.e. roadworker entity, is necessarily identified during the roadwork event.);
define a geo-defense area related to the roadworker entity based at least on part on map data related to the roadwork zone region and location data related to the roadworker entity (See [0026], the second vehicle uses the map data to determine whether the construction object it identified is within a construction zone, i.e. uses the map data and location data related to the roadworker entity in the following steps. The second vehicle can then reclassify the construction zone. See [0005], classifying the construction zone includes determining the area of the construction zone. This is defining a geo-defense area related to the roadworker entity.); and
provide an indication of the geo-defense area to an electronic control unit of one or more autonomous vehicles that is configured to adjust at least an autonomous driving mode of the one or more autonomous vehicles along the road segment based at least in part on the indication (See [0066]; map updates based on the identification and classification of construction zones are shared with other autonomous vehicles. See [0009], the detailed map information comprising the construction zone is used for controlling the driving behavior of vehicles of an area of the construction zone. This is facilitating navigation of autonomous vehicles. An indication of the construction zone is necessarily sent to the electronic control unit in order to control the vehicle. See [0004]-[0006] the autonomous driving mode of the vehicle is set based on the classification of the construction zone.).
Ferguson does not explicitly disclose (ii) deemed vulnerable to an incident with a vehicle.
Shoeb renders obvious (ii) deemed vulnerable to an incident with a vehicle (See [0036]-[0038]. A close encounter between a UAV, i.e. a vehicle, and an obstacle is detected is detected in the vehicle’s video, i.e. sensor data. A geofence is created around the obstacle in order to prevent other UAVs in the area from colliding with the obstacle. This is because the obstacle is deemed vulnerable to an incident with a vehicle. The broadest reasonable interpretation of roadwork event read in light of the specification comprises when workers or equipment are currently present and performing tasks related to construction and when the site is idle but the equipment is present. This means that the construction object, i.e. roadworker entity, is necessarily identified during the roadwork event).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for detection zones based on identifying construction objects disclosed by Ferguson to include determining whether the objects detected are vulnerable to collision Shoeb. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide information for safe operation of other vehicles while avoiding use computer resources to update maps when obstacles not likely to cause collision are present, as suggested by Shoeb at [0020]-[0022].
Claims 2-5, 8, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ferguson and Shoeb in view of US 20210404829 A1, hereinafter “St. Romain”.
Regarding claim 2, Ferguson combined with Shoeb renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson combined with Shoeb does not explicitly disclose wherein identifying the roadwork event comprises identifying the roadwork event based at least in part on road condition data related to the road segment.
St. Romain, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses wherein identifying the roadwork event comprises identifying the roadwork event based at least in part on road condition data related to the road segment (See [0010], the mapping system monitors vehicle traffic activity, i.e. road condition data related to a road segment, to determine a discrepancy and an area corresponding to the discrepancy. See [0068]-[0069], the discrepancy can correspond to construction, i.e. a roadwork event. See Fig. 3 and [0067]-[0070], the cause of the discrepancy is identified using vehicle sensor data, i.e. the roadwork event is identified based on the road condition data.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for detection zones based on identifying construction objects disclosed by Ferguson and Shoeb to use traffic data in identifying construction zones of St. Romain. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use available information to determine whether a map needs to be updated, as suggested by St. Romain at [0010].
Regarding claim 3, Ferguson combined with Shoeb discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson combined with Shoeb does not explicitly disclose wherein identifying the roadwork event comprises identifying the roadwork event based at least in part on traffic incident data related to the road segment.
St. Romain, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses explicitly disclose wherein identifying the roadwork event comprises identifying the roadwork event based at least in part on traffic incident data related to the road segment (See [0010], the mapping system monitors vehicle traffic activity, i.e. road condition data related to a road segment, to determine a discrepancy between traffic activity and expected traffic activity, as well as an area corresponding to the discrepancy. See [0068]-[0069], the discrepancy can correspond to construction, i.e. a roadwork event. See Fig. 3 and [0067]-[0070], the cause of the discrepancy is identified using vehicle sensor data, i.e. the roadwork event is identified based on the road condition data. See [0035], the data analyzed by the system to detect the discrepancy comprises the number of accidents, i.e. traffic incident data. ).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for detection zones based on identifying construction objects disclosed by Ferguson and Shoeb to use traffic data, including accident data, in identifying construction zones of St. Romain. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use available information to determine whether a map needs to be updated, as suggested by St. Romain at [0010].
Regarding claim 4, Ferguson combined with Shoeb discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson does not explicitly disclose wherein identifying the roadwork event comprises identifying the roadwork event based at least in part on hazard warning data related to the road segment.
St. Romain, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses wherein identifying the roadwork event comprises identifying the roadwork event based at least in part on hazard warning data related to the road segment (See [0059] St. Romain teaches using a database of stored discrepancy data, which can include potholes, accidents, stopped vehicles, and the like, in determining the cause of traffic discrepancies. This is hazard warning data related to the road segment. See [0010], the mapping system monitors vehicle traffic activity, i.e. road condition data related to a road segment, to determine a discrepancy between traffic activity and expected traffic activity, as well as an area corresponding to the discrepancy. See [0068]-[0069], the discrepancy can correspond to construction, i.e. a roadwork event. See Fig. 3 and [0067]-[0070], the cause of the discrepancy is identified using vehicle sensor data, i.e. the roadwork event is identified based on the road condition data.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for detection zones based on identifying construction objects disclosed by Ferguson and Shoeb to use stored hazard data in identifying construction zones of St. Romain. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use available information to determine the cause of traffic discrepancies whether a map needs to be updated to indicate that cause, as suggested by St. Romain at [0059].
Regarding claim 5, Ferguson combined with Shoeb discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson combined with Shoeb does not explicitly disclose wherein identifying the roadwork event comprises identifying the roadwork event based at least in part on weather condition data related to the road segment.
St. Romain, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses wherein identifying the roadwork event comprises identifying the roadwork event based at least in part on weather condition data related to the road segment (See [0035]-[0037], the system creates geofences around areas of traffic discrepancy. The system can establish an initial geofence around an area of interest and then create secondary geofences to monitor areas within the area of interest. The system requests sensor data from vehicles within the geofence for analysis. See [0010], the mapping system monitors vehicle traffic activity, i.e. road condition data related to a road segment, to determine a discrepancy between traffic activity and expected traffic activity, as well as an area corresponding to the discrepancy. See [0068]-[0069], the discrepancy can correspond to construction, i.e. a roadwork event. See Fig. 3 and [0067]-[0070], the cause of the discrepancy is identified using vehicle sensor data. See [0063], a geofence can be established around an area which typically has dangerous icy conditions. Examiner asserts that determining that an area typically has dangerous icy conditions comprises use of weather condition data related to the road segment.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for detection zones based on identifying construction objects disclosed by Ferguson and Shoeb to use historical weather data for defining initial regions for monitoring of road hazards, including construction, of St. Romain. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use available information to determine the cause of traffic discrepancies whether a map needs to be updated to indicate that cause, as suggested by St. Romain at [0063].
Regarding claim 8, Ferguson combined with Shoeb discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ferguson combined with Shoeb does not explicitly disclose wherein defining the geo-defense area comprises defining a speed profile for the geo-defense area based at least on part on the map data related to the roadwork zone region and the location data related to the roadworker entity. St. Romain, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses wherein defining the geo-defense area comprises defining a speed profile for the geo-defense area based at least on part on the map data related to the roadwork zone region and the location data related to the roadworker entity (See [0069]-[0072], the system establishes a second geofence within an already existing geofence in response to identifying a discrepancy. See [0010], the system uses the difference between vehicle traffic activity and expected vehicle traffic activity in determining the existence of a discrepancy and its area. See [0036], monitoring traffic data within a geofence comprises monitoring the speed of traffic overall, i.e. comprises creation of a speed profile. See [0068]-[0069], the discrepancy can correspond to construction, i.e. a roadwork event, meaning the first geo-fence corresponds to a roadwork zone region and the second geo-fence corresponds to a geo-defense area. This means that defining the geo-defense area comprises defining a speed profile for the geo-defense area.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for detection zones based on identifying construction objects disclosed by Ferguson and Shoeb to create a speed profile for the geo-defense area of St. Romain. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine whether the defined geo-defense region sufficiently explains the speed profile observed or more sensor data is necessary, as suggested by St. Romain at [0070]-[0072].
Regarding claim 14, Ferguson combined with Shoeb renders obvious the limitations of claim 13. Ferguson combined with Shoeb does not explicitly disclose identify the roadwork event based at least in part on road condition data related to the road segment.
St. Romain, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses identify the roadwork event based at least in part on road condition data related to the road segment (See [0010], the mapping system monitors vehicle traffic activity, i.e. road condition data related to a road segment, to determine a discrepancy and an area corresponding to the discrepancy. See [0068]-[0069], the discrepancy can correspond to construction, i.e. a roadwork event. See Fig. 3 and [0067]-[0070], the cause of the discrepancy is identified using vehicle sensor data, i.e. the roadwork event is identified based on the road condition data.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for detection zones based on identifying construction objects disclosed by Ferguson and Shoeb to use traffic data in identifying construction zones of St. Romain. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use available information to determine whether a map needs to be updated, as suggested by St. Romain at [0010].
Regarding claim 15, Ferguson combined with Shoeb discloses the limitations of claim 13. Ferguson combined with Shoeb does not explicitly disclose identify the roadwork event based at least in part on traffic incident data related to the road segment.
St. Romain, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses explicitly disclose identify the roadwork event based at least in part on traffic incident data related to the road segment (See [0010], the mapping system monitors vehicle traffic activity, i.e. road condition data related to a road segment, to determine a discrepancy between traffic activity and expected traffic activity, as well as an area corresponding to the discrepancy. See [0068]-[0069], the discrepancy can correspond to construction, i.e. a roadwork event. See Fig. 3 and [0067]-[0070], the cause of the discrepancy is identified using vehicle sensor data, i.e. the roadwork event is identified based on the road condition data. See [0035], the data analyzed by the system to detect the discrepancy comprises the number of accidents, i.e. traffic incident data.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for detection zones based on identifying construction objects disclosed by Ferguson and Shoeb to use traffic data, including accident data, in identifying construction zones of St. Romain. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use available information to determine whether a map needs to be updated, as suggested by St. Romain at [0010].
Regarding claim 16, Ferguson combined with Shoeb discloses the limitations of claim 13. Ferguson does not explicitly disclose identify the roadwork event based at least in part on hazard warning data related to the road segment.
St. Romain, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses identify the roadwork event based at least in part on hazard warning data related to the road segment (See [0059] St. Romain teaches using a database of stored discrepancy data, which can include potholes, accidents, stopped vehicles, and the like, in determining the cause of traffic discrepancies. This is hazard warning data related to the road segment. See [0010], the mapping system monitors vehicle traffic activity, i.e. road condition data related to a road segment, to determine a discrepancy between traffic activity and expected traffic activity, as well as an area corresponding to the discrepancy. See [0068]-[0069], the discrepancy can correspond to construction, i.e. a roadwork event. See Fig. 3 and [0067]-[0070], the cause of the discrepancy is identified using vehicle sensor data, i.e. the roadwork event is identified based on the road condition data.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for detection zones based on identifying construction objects disclosed by Ferguson and Shoeb to use stored hazard data in identifying construction zones of St. Romain. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use available information to determine the cause of traffic discrepancies whether a map needs to be updated to indicate that cause, as suggested by St. Romain at [0059].
Regarding claim 18, Ferguson combined with Shoeb discloses the limitations of claim 13. Ferguson combined with Shoeb does not explicitly disclose define a speed profile for the geo-defense area based at least on part on the map data related to the roadwork zone region and the location data related to the roadworker entity. St. Romain, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses define a speed profile for the geo-defense area based at least on part on the map data related to the roadwork zone region and the location data related to the roadworker entity (See [0069]-[0072], the system establishes a second geofence within an already existing geofence in response to identifying a discrepancy. See [0010], the system uses the difference between vehicle traffic activity and expected vehicle traffic activity in determining the existence of a discrepancy and its area. See [0036], monitoring traffic data within a geofence comprises monitoring the speed of traffic overall, i.e. comprises creation of a speed profile. See [0068]-[0069], the discrepancy can correspond to construction, i.e. a roadwork event, meaning the first geo-fence corresponds to a roadwork zone region and the second geo-fence corresponds to a geo-defense area. This means that defining the geo-defense area comprises defining a speed profile for the geo-defense area.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for detection zones based on identifying construction objects disclosed by Ferguson and Shoeb to create a speed profile for the geo-defense area of St. Romain. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine whether the defined geo-defense region sufficiently explains the speed profile observed or more sensor data is necessary, as suggested by St. Romain at [0070]-[0072].
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant argues “I.Claim Objections
The Final Office Action objects to claims 1, 13 and 20 for alleged informalities. Without conceding the propriety of the objections, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the objections in light of the amendments herein to claims 1, 13 and 20.”
As to (A)¸ Examiner agrees that the amended claims overcome the objections.
(B) Applicant argues “II. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
The Final Office Action rejects claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 has allegedly being directed to non-statutory subject matter. In relation to Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test, Applicant concurs with the position taken by the Final Office Action that the claims are drawn to a method, machine or article of manufacture. Applicant also notes that the Advisory Action dated November 24, 2025 states that "Regarding Step 1, Applicant agrees that independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea." See Advisory Action, page 9. However, Applicant respectfully disagrees with this statement and notes that the After-Final Response dated November 17, 2025 instead states that "[i]n relation to Step 1 ... Applicant concurs with the position taken by the Final Office Action that the claims are drawn to a method, machine or article of manufacture." Applicant also respectfully submits that independent claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea. In particular, Applicant respectfully submits that proper application of the two-part analysis as set forth by Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) does not result in the claims being found to be drawn to ineligible subject matter but, instead, more properly finds the claims to be drawn to statutory or patent eligible subject matter. Furthermore, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 13 and 20 (and claims which depend therefrom) are not directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea as alleged by the Examiner), and even assuming arguendo that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
In this regard, independent claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for defining a geo-defense area related to presence of a roadworker entity, the computer-implemented method comprising: identifying a roadwork event related within roadwork zone region of a road segment; obtaining sensor data from one or more probe apparatuses traveling along the road segment; subsequent to identifying the roadwork event within the roadwork zone region, determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, an occurrence of at least one roadworker entity that is (i) located within the roadwork zone region associated with the roadwork event and (ii) deemed vulnerable to an incident with a vehicle during the roadwork event identified within the roadwork zone region; defining a geo-defense area related to the roadworker entity based at least on part on map data related to the roadwork zone region and location data related to the roadworker entity; and providing an indication of the geo-defense area to an electronic control unit of one or more autonomous vehicles that is configured to adjust at least an autonomous driving mode of the one or more autonomous vehicles along the road segment based at least in part on the
indication.
Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 is directed to patent eligible subj ect matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in view of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, (hereinafter "Revised Subject Matter Guidance"), and further in view of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (Oct. 18, 2019), (hereinafter "October Subject Matter Guidance").
Under the Revised Subject Matter Guidance, an Examiner is to apply the various steps of the Alice/Mayo test including the two-prong analysis of Step 2A to determine whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea and the analysis of Step 2B to determine whether the claim is patent eligible because it recites "significantly more" than the alleged judicial exception. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, § 2106 (10th ed. Rev. June 2020) (hereinafter "MPEP"). For at least the following reasons, Applicant submits that independent claim 1 presents patent eligible subject matter under at least both prongs of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test.
STEP 2A (Alice/Mayo Test)
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP § 2106.04.II.A. Under Prong One, the Examiner is to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception noted in the subject matter groupings listed in Section I of the Revised Subject Matter Guidance. Id. These groupings include: (1) certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices; (2) mathematical formulas; and (3) mental processes. Id § 2106(a); see also Ex Parte Hannun, No. 2018-003323, p. 4 (Apr. 1, 2019). Under Prong Two, the Examiner is to determine "whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception." Id."A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." Id.
Step 2A - Prong One
Regarding Prong One, the Final Office Action alleges that certain aspects of independent claim 1 recite "mental processes." See Final Office Action, page 3. Applicant respectfully disagrees. In contrast, claim 1 provides "improved navigation of a vehicle, improved route guidance for a vehicle, improved semi-autonomous vehicle control, and/or improved fully autonomous vehicle control." See Specification as-filed, at least paragraphs [0003] and [0050]. For example, claim 1 recites, in part, "obtaining sensor data from one or more probe apparatuses traveling along the road segment,""subsequent to identifying the roadwork event within the roadwork zone region, determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, an occurrence of at least one roadworker entity that is (i) located within the roadwork zone region associated with the roadwork event and (ii) deemed vulnerable to an incident with a vehicle during the roadwork event identified within the roadwork zone region,""defining a geo-defense area related to the roadworker entity based at least on part on map data related to the roadwork zone region and location data related to the roadworker entity," and "providing an indication of the geo- defense area to an electronic control unit of one or more autonomous vehicles that is configured
to adjust at least an autonomous driving mode of the one or more autonomous vehicles along the road segment based at least in part on the indication." (emphasis added).
The MPEP defines the mental processes grouping as "concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)." MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). It further notes that "[c]laims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation." Id.
Applicant respectfully submits that "obtaining sensor data from one or more probe apparatuses traveling along the road segment" cannot, as a practical matter, be performed in the human mind. Additionally, Applicant respectfully submits that "adjust[ing] at least an autonomous driving mode of the one or more autonomous vehicles along the road segment based at least in part on the indication" via "an electronic control unit of one or more autonomous vehicles" also cannot, as a practical matter, be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, e.g., in the field of autonomous vehicle technologies, would understand that the steps recited in amended independent claim 1 as a whole do not relate to "mental processes," as alleged by the Examiner. For at least these reasons, claim 1 does not recite a mental process.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at least because the claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception under prong one of Step 2A.
Step 2A - Prong Two
Regarding the second prong of the Alice/Mayo Test, the Final Office Action alleges that "the mental processes are not integrated a practical application. See Final Office Action, page 5. Even if claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea-which, Applicant submits, it is not-Applicant asserts that the claim recites additional elements that improve a technical field such that the claim as a whole integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, Applicant asserts that claim 1 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application at least because11of1
the claim provides improvements to the functioning of a vehicle and, specifically, to "improved navigation of a vehicle, improved route guidance for a vehicle, improved semi-autonomous vehicle control, and/or improved fully autonomous vehicle control." See Specification as-filed, at least paragraphs [0003] and [0034].
The MPEP states that "[l]imitations that the courts have found to qualify as 'significantly more' when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include . .. improvements to the functioning of a computer [or] improvements to any other technology or technical field." MPEP §2106.05(c). Claim 1 includes a number of features that provide improvements to the functioning of a computer and, specifically, to autonomous vehicle technologies. For example, claim 1 recites "providing an indication of the geo-defense area to an electronic control unit of one or more autonomous vehicles that is configured to adjust at least an autonomous driving mode of the one or more autonomous vehicles along the road segment based at least in part on the indication." (emphasis added). Thus, at least these recitations of claim 1 reflect a technical improvement related to autonomous vehicle technologies.
Moreover, MPEP § 2106.05(a) states:
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome ... Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical
field.
As further stated in the MPEP:
"claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application significantlycantly more" and "a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception
into a practical application or provide significantly more." See MPEP § 2106.05(f)12.
Applicant respectfully submits that at least "providing an indication of the geo-defense area to an electronic control unit of one or more autonomous vehicles that is configured to adjust at least an autonomous driving mode of the one or more autonomous vehicles along the road segment based at least in part on the indication" provides a desired outcome and/or a practical application for "adjust[ing] at least an autonomous driving mode of the one or more autonomous vehicles along the road segment" by utilizing "the indication."
For at least these reasons, claim 1 recites a combination of additional elements that improves a technical field such that the claim as a whole integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention integrates an alleged abstract idea into a practical application under prong two of step 2A.
STEP 2B (Alice/Mayo Test)
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test focuses on whether the additional elements present in the claim and their combination are unconventional and provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05.II. Applicant respectfully submits that the added elements cannot be considered to be well-understood, routine, or known within the industry at least because they do not appear to be taught by the prior art of record. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the Final Office Action improperly rejects independent claims 1, 13 and 20 (and the claims depending therefrom) as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter and requests withdrawal of the rejection.”
As to (B), Examiner agrees that the grounds for rejection under 35 USC 101 have been overcome for independent claims 1, 13, and 20, and their corresponding dependent claims.
(C) Applicant argues “III. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 4 103
The Final Office Action rejects claims 11, 6-7, 9-13, 17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as allegedly being unpatentable over Ferguson et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0229439; hereinafter 'Ferguson') in view of in view of Shoeb et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0169573; hereinafter 'Shoeb'). The Final Office Action also rejects claims 2-5, 8, 14-16, and 18 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Shoeb and further in view of St. Romain et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0260384; hereinafter. Romain'). Applicant respectfully traverses and requests withdrawal of the rejections for at least the following reasons.
Claim 1 recites, in part:
subsequent to identifying the roadwork event within the roadwork zone region,
determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, an occurrence of at least one
roadworker entity that is (i) located within the roadwork zone region associated
with the roadwork event and (ii) deemed vulnerable to an incident with a vehicle during the roadwork event identified within the roadwork zone
region. (emphasis added).
See Claim 1. Claims 13 and 20 recite similar limitations.
Ferguson discloses "mapping and classifying construction zones in order to improve safety and efficiency of autonomous vehicles." See Ferguson, paragraph [0024]. Ferguson further discloses that "[t]he first vehicle may use its sensors to detect a construction zone, for example, by identifying a construction obj ect such as a road work sign, cone, barrel, fence, construction vehicle, flare, or other items commonly associated with construction zones." Id. Additionally, with Ferguson, "the first vehicle may determine whether the construction zone is active or inactive." See Ferguson, paragraph [0025].
However, Ferguson does not teach or suggest "subsequent to identifying the roadwork event within the roadwork zone region, determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, an occurrence of at least one roadworker entity that is (i) located within the roadwork zone region associated with the roadwork event and (ii) deemed vulnerable to an incident with a vehicle during the roadwork event identified within the roadwork zone region," as recited in amended claim 1 (and similarly in amended claims 13 and 20).
Shoeb fails to cure the deficiencies of Ferguson. Shoeb discloses "actions taken when close encounters between a UAV 105 and an obstacle 205 are flagged." See Shoeb, paragraph [0036]. Shoeb further discloses that "[w]hen encounter flags are asserted (decision block 374), a temporal window of the buffered video stream is saved to onboard memory of UAV 105." See Shoeb, paragraph [0037]. Additionally, with Shoeb, "[o]nce a close encounter has been identified and flagged ... [a]n immediate notification enables the backend management system to immediately establish a geofence restriction zone around the location of the close encounter until the saved video clip of the close encounter is analyzed." Additionally, Shoeb discloses that "[s]ome of these obstacles may be persistent unchanging obstacles (e.g., streetlights, telephone poles, radio towers, etc.) while others may be temporary (cranes, etc.), or always changing (e.g., trees)." See Shoeb, paragraph [0024].
In other words, Shoeb describes analysis of a video stream to flag a close encounter between a UAV and an obstacle identified in the video stream. However, Shoeb does not teach or suggest determining an occurrence of at least one roadworker entity that is deemed vulnerable to an incident with a vehicle during a roadwork event identified within a roadwork zone region.
Accordingly, Shoeb fails to teach or suggest "subsequent to identifying the roadwork event within the roadwork zone region, determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, an occurrence of at least one roadworker entity that is (i) located within the roadwork zone region associated with the roadwork event and (ii) deemed vulnerable to an incident with a vehicle during the roadwork event identified within the roadwork zone region," as recited in amended claim 1 (and similarly in amended claims 13 and 20).
As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Ferguson and Shoeb, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest each and every feature of claims 1, 13 and 20. Applicant also respectfully submits that St. Romain fails to cure the above identified deficiencies of Ferguson and Shoeb, nor was St. Romain cited for any purported teachings of such features. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1, 13 and 20 (and claims 2-12 and 14-20 which depend therefrom) be withdrawn.
Any other claims not explicitly discussed herein are dependent from one of the independent claims discussed above, and are patentable for at least the same reasons. Applicant, therefore, respectfully submits that the rejections herewith are overcome and requests that the rejections be withdrawn. Since each dependent claim is also deemed to define an additional aspect, however, the individual reconsideration of the patentability of each on its own merits is respectfully requested.”
As to (C), Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of roadwork event in light of the specification comprises situations where workers or equipment are currently present and performing tasks related to construction and when the site is idle but the equipment is present, i.e. the active and inactive construction zones of Ferguson. See [0031] of the specification, “A roadwork event can be an event related to construction, road work, road maintenance, and/or another safety risk situation related to a road segment where one or more roadworker entities are likely present.” This means that any identification of a “construction object” in Ferguson inherently occurs during roadwork event, whether the construction zone is active or inactive. This means that the construction object, i.e. roadworker entity, identified in Ferguson is necessarily identified during the roadwork event.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
US 20230311850 A1 which relates to classifying sections of road based on sensor data for drivability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN ROBERT CHENNAULT whose telephone number is (571)272-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/AUSTIN ROBERT CHENNAULT/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/ANSHUL SOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667