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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ArcGIS https://web.archive.org/web/20230330193730/https://doc.arcgis.com/en/indoors/latest/viewer/configure-route-barriers.htm, March 2023, in view of Mobileye 2016.
Regarding claim 1, ArcGIS discloses a method comprising:
receiving data describing a shape and location of a traffic restriction (Page 1, P2 discloses that barriers are features that reflect temporary changes to the network, for example due to building renovations or repair work. The default barrier is a restriction barrier, which means directions avoid going through the barrier and route around it);
generating a polygon for the traffic restriction, the polygon comprising a portion of a roadway (Page 1, P4 discloses that barriers can be a point, line, or polygon feature);
generating a route cost for the traffic restriction, the routing cost relating to an expected time for a vehicle to navigate around the traffic restriction on the roadway (Page 2 BarrierType section discloses the added cost of a delay to the route for a point barriers and a scaled cost adds a delay to the route for a polygon);
generating map data describing the traffic restriction, the map comprising a location of the traffic restriction, the routing cost of the traffic restriction, and duration of the traffic restriction (Page 1, P2, as well as Page 2, Create barriers from network analysis layers disclose presenting all data on a map. Page 3, line 1 discloses that the barriers are time aware); and
transmitting the generated map data to a vehicle (See above); and
generating a path for the vehicle to traverse, the path based on the map data scribing the traffic restriction (Page 2 discloses a route layer for traversing the barrier).
Regarding the new limitations that the data is received from a first AV using one or more sensors and that the data is sent to a second AV, this is taught by Mobileye.
Specifically, Mobileye on Page 2 discloses maintaining near real-time accurate maps of the environment based on harnessing the crowd by exploiting the proliferation of camera-based ADAS systems. The camera-equipped vehicles all collect and transit data about the driving path’s geometry and this data is then analyzed in real-time in other vehicles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing data to modify ArcGIS with Mobileye to take the technology of ArcGIS and use it between vehicles to make it more widespread, accessible, and usable.
Regarding the new limitations, these limitations merely amount to repeating the steps above for the purposes of updating. That is, these are the new limitations:
instructing the second AV to capture updated data describing the shape and the location of the traffic restriction when the second AV is within a threshold distance of the location of the traffic restriction;
determining that the traffic restriction has been removed or changed based on the updated data captured by the second AV; and
updating the map data describing the traffic restriction based on determining that the traffic restriction has been removed or changed.
These steps are performed in the exact same way as the initial shape generation and map generation steps. Specifically, the references above teach capturing data describing the shape and location of a traffic restriction in ArcGIS. Mobileye shows this being done by a specific AV. Determining whether the traffic restriction has been removed or changed is merely recognizing features of that traffic restriction, which is disclosed in ArcGIS, and updating a map is the same as map generation, just repeated a second time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply repeat the steps disclosed by ArcGIS and Mobileye to allow for continuous driving of a vehicle. That is, it would be beneficial to allow for updating of a map to provide real-time data so that a vehicle is not locked in to following an outdated map.
Regarding claim 2, ArcGIS further discloses identifying at least a subset of the plurality of polygons having an overlapping geometry and merging at least the subset of the plurality of polygons into the polygon describing the traffic restriction (As discussed above, and Page 2, section 5, ArcGIS discloses polygon features that are all within a polygon. This is equivalent to a subset of polygons and merging them).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 7, these claims amount to repeating the steps for claim 1, and this is described in ArcGIS because it is used for a plurality of barriers.
Regarding claim 6, it should be known by one of ordinary skill in the art that ArcGIS uses machine learning to produce results.
All other claims are mirror claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding prior art are moot because they are directed to newly amended limitations addressed above.
Regarding the new limitations, these limitations merely amount to repeating the steps above for the purposes of updating. That is, these are the new limitations:
instructing the second AV to capture updated data describing the shape and the location of the traffic restriction when the second AV is within a threshold distance of the location of the traffic restriction;
determining that the traffic restriction has been removed or changed based on the updated data captured by the second AV; and
updating the map data describing the traffic restriction based on determining that the traffic restriction has been removed or changed.
These steps are performed in the exact same way as the initial shape generation and map generation steps. Specifically, the references above teach capturing data describing the shape and location of a traffic restriction in ArcGIS. Mobileye shows this being done by a specific AV. Determining whether the traffic restriction has been removed or changed is merely recognizing features of that traffic restriction, which is disclosed in ArcGIS, and updating a map is the same as map generation, just repeated a second time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply repeat the steps disclosed by ArcGIS and Mobileye to allow for continuous driving of a vehicle. That is, it would be beneficial to allow for updating of a map to provide real-time data so that a vehicle is not locked in to following an outdated map.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYAN E WEISENFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 5712721206. 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.
ARYAN E. WEISENFELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3689
/ARYAN E WEISENFELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663