DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/418,702 filed on 01/22/2024.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 01/05/2026.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18/418,702 filed on 01/22/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/13/2025, 01/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The complete step-by-step analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is provided below:
STEP One: Do Claims 1, 10, 19 Fall Within One of The Statutory Categories?
Yes, claim 1 is directed towards a machine, claim 10 is directed towards a method, claim 19 is directed towards a computer program product (a process).
STEP Two A , Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, claims 1, 14, 19 recite “generate first information indicating that the first event in a first tile is associated with a second tile, wherein a geographic coverage level of the first tile is based on a geographic range of the first event, wherein the first information further indicates a first tile identifier of the first tile, wherein the first tile identifier is based on the geographic coverage level of the first tile, wherein the first event is a first dynamic event in a map, and wherein the first tile and the second tile are two different tiles in the map”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person taking a look at the traffic data and determining a traffic accident event at a first location increases a congestion degree of a traffic congestion event at the second location, wherein the first location is adjacent to the second location. Thus, the claims 1, 10, 19 recite a mental process.
STEP Two A , Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional elements of obtain, from a data source device, detection information indicating a current status of a first event. The receiving step from the sensors and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Store the first information which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity as well. The “apparatus, memories and processors” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose computer environment. Generating the map based in part on the first informational is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the evaluation result from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
STEP Two B: Does the Claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant post-solution activity. Accordingly, the generating first information step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 2-9, 11-18, 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim2-9, 11-18, 20 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for the rejection of claim 1, 10 and 19.
Claims 2-4, 11, 13-14, 20 merely further specify how to determine the first event is associated with the second tile. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person taking a look at the traffic data and determining a traffic accident event at a first location increases a congestion degree of a traffic congestion event at the second location, wherein the first location is adjacent to the second location.
Claims 5-6, 15 merely further specify how to determine that second description information of the second tile in the map needs to be updated. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Claims 7, 9, 17-18 merely further specify how to store the first information in a data structure which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 8, 12, 16 merely further specify how to indicate a first event identifier of the first event and further indicates a second tile identifier of the second tile. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
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) 1-2, 6-11, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenneth (US20210108942A1) in view of Vakharia (US20170314935A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, 19:
Stenneth teaches:
An apparatus comprising: one or more memories configured to store programming instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the apparatus to: (Stenneth, abstract, “An apparatus is configured to perform a method for generating warning polygons for weather events in a geographic region”, para[104], “computer”)
obtain, from a data source device, detection information indicating a current status of a first event; (Stenneth, para [40-41],” the weather polygon controller 121 may receive the input of vehicle observations from probes…The probe data may include sensor data related to a weather event. The weather events may include rain, fog, precipitation, snow conditions, ice conditions, or others”) Examiner note: Stenneth teaches obtaining, from a data source device probes, detection information indicating a current status of a first event such as weather event.
generate first information indicating that the first event in a first tile is associated with a second tile, (Stenneth, para [39], “the weather polygon controller 121 of FIG. 2 to generate warning polygons for weather events in a geographic region”, Fig.5 and para[49], “FIG. 5 illustrates an example pre-activation stage for the weather polygon controller…FIG. 5 illustrates a shading for the subset of map tiles, including map tiles … C, E, G, K, L, O, R, and T. ”) Examiner note: Stenneth teaches the weather polygon controller generate first information for the weather events and depicts in fig.5 that the weather events associated with shading map tiles of C, E, G, K, L, O, R, and T.
wherein the first event is a firs dynamic event in a map, and wherein the first tile and the second tile are two different tiles in the map; (Stenneth, para [39], “the weather polygon controller 121 of FIG. 2 to generate warning polygons for weather events in a geographic region”, Fig.5 and para[49], “FIG. 5 illustrates an example pre-activation stage for the weather polygon controller…FIG. 5 illustrates a shading for the subset of map tiles, including map tiles … C, E, G, K, L, O, R, and T. ”) Examiner note: Stenneth teaches the weather polygon controller generate first information for the weather events and depicts in fig.5 that the weather events associated with shading map tiles of C, E, G, K, L, O, R, and T which are different map tiles.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
store the first information. (Stenneth, para[92], “The memory 301 may be a means for storing the index including the at least one map tile”, and para[108], “store the weather polygon data ”)
generate the map based in part on the first information (Stenneth, para[75], “generate the map 70 including the polygon and the geographic region”) Examiner note: Stenneth teaches generating the map including the polygon which is generated based in part on the first information such as weather event.
Stenneth does not explicitly teach, but Vakharia teaches:
wherein a geographic coverage level of the fist tile is based on a geographic range of the first event, (Vakharia, para[71], “The dynamic shape may correspond to an area on a map that changes over time. The dynamic shape may be weather based (e.g., precipitation or fog), condition based (e.g., slippery road or snow coverage), or disaster based (e.g., flood or gas cloud). Examiner note: Vakharia teaches the geographic coverage level of map tiles is dynamic changed based on the first event such as weather or disaster conditions so the navigation app can represent the event appropriately.
wherein the first information further indicates a first tile identifier of the first tile, (Vakharia, para[05], “identifies at least one map tile identifier”)
wherein the first tile identifier is based on the geographic coverage level of the fist tile, (Vakharia, para[05], “identifies at least one map tile identifier … based on the identified map tile level”, and para [59], “The map tile level may be determined based on a zoom level in the client application”) Examiner note: Vakharia teaches tile identifiers are selected in dependence on the map tile level which is based on the geographic coverage level (zoom/scale) of the map tiles, therefore satisfying the requirement that the first tile identifier is based on the geographic coverage level.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method for generating warning polygons from Stenneth to include these above teachings from Vakharia in order to include wherein a geographic coverage level of the fist tile is based on a geographic range of the first event, wherein the first information further indicates a first tile identifier of the first tile, wherein the first tile identifier is based on the geographic coverage level of the fist tile. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid the traffic jam caused by the weather event.
Regarding Claims 2, 11 and 20:
Stenneth in view of Vakharia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stenneth teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first event is associated with the second tile when a change of the first event affects a second dynamic event in the second tile (Stenneth, para [76], “The polygon 62 illustrates a weather event on the navigation system. A description of the weather event (e.g., rain, fog) may be display on the navigation system. A driver of the vehicle 124 may select a route in response to the weather event. The driver of the vehicle 124 may adjust a speed, change lanes, or exit a road in response to the weather event.”) Examiner note: Stenneth teaches the change of the weather event affects the dynamic event such as driver of second tile will change the route in order to avoid the weather event occurs in first tile.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12:
Stenneth in view of Vakharia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Stenneth teaches:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first information further indicates a second event identifier of a second event in the second tile, (Stenneth, para [62], “the map tile identifiers for map tiles G and L ”)
and wherein the second event is affected by the change of the first event. (Stenneth, para [62], “As shown in FIG. 6, map tiles G and L were removed from the set of tiles (highlighted tiles that were pre-activated) because the confidence level for map tiles G and L was determined by the weather polygon controller 121 to be less than the threshold”, and para[65], “If the threshold confidence level is too low, map tiles may be tagged when there is no significant weather event but instead only a mist or very light rain”) Examiner note: Stenneth teaches the second tile of G and L having the identifier of none significant weather event such as a mist which is affected by the change of the first event (weather event).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15:
Stenneth in view of Vakharia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stenneth teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the apparatus to update the first information when: the first event disappears or the first event changes. (Stenneth, para[115], “The weather polygons 306 (1)(2) and 306(2)(2) may change dynamically or over time.”, para [37], “The local map may include a subset of the geographic database 123 and are updated ”)
Regarding Claims 7 and 16:
Stenneth in view of Vakharia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stenneth teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the apparatus to store the first information in a data structure that is in the map and that describes the first tile. (Stenneth, para[92], “The memory 301 may be a means for storing the index including the at least one map tile”, and para[108], “store the weather polygon data ”)
Regarding Claims 8 and 17:
Stenneth in view of Vakharia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Stenneth teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first information further indicates a first event identifier of the first event (Stenneth, claim 4, “generating a map including the weather event indicator.”
and further indicates a second tile identifier of the second tile(Stenneth, para[48], “The weather polygon controller 121 through input 30 may receive data for the set of map tiles including a map tile identifier. The map tile identifier may be an alphanumeric code unique to each map tile.”)
Regarding Claims 9 and 18:
Stenneth in view of Vakharia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 8. Stenneth teaches:
The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the apparatus to store the first information in a data structure in which the first tile identifier of the first tile (Stenneth, , para [91], “The memory 301 and/or database 123 includes the map tile database 31 and the index of activated map tiles”, and para[48], “The weather polygon controller 121 through input 30 may receive data for the set of map tiles including a map tile identifier. The map tile identifier may be an alphanumeric code unique to each map tile.”)
and the second tile identifier are associated indexes. (Stenneth, para[92], “The memory 301 may be a means for storing the index including the at least one map tile”)
Claim(s) 4-5, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenneth (US20210108942A1) in view of Vakharia (US20170314935A1), further in view of Yamazaki (EP2323115A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13:
Stenneth in view of Vakharia, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. Stenneth does not explicitly teach, but Yamazaki teaches:
The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the apparatus to: obtain second information indicating the current status of the first event;( Yamazaki, para[40], “the real-time traffic information and the unexpected event information are acquired from the traffic jam determining unit ”)
determine, based on the second information, that the change of the first event occurs; ( Yamazaki, para[33], “the real-time traffic information is undergoing a sudden change…for example, the travel speed is sharply reduced”)
determine, based on the first information, that first description information of the second event in the map needs to be updated; and update the first description information based on the second information. ( Yamazaki, para[22], “determines that a traffic jam liable to have an effect on the starting place has occurred or will occur in the future. Upon determination that a traffic jam liable to have an effect on the starting place has occurred or will occur in the future, the real-time traffic information and the unexpected event information are sent to the traffic jam arrival time prediction unit ”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method for generating warning polygons from Stenneth to include these above teachings from Yamazaki in order to include wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the apparatus to: obtain second information indicating a current status of the first event; determine, based on the second information, that the change of the first event occurs; determine, based on the first information, that first description information of the second event in the map needs to be updated; and update the first description information based on the second information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid the traffic jam.
Regarding Claims 5 and 14:
Stenneth in view of Vakharia, Yamazaki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Stenneth does not explicitly teach, but Yamazaki teaches:
The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the apparatus to: obtain third information indicating the current status of the first event; ( Yamazaki, para[40], “the real-time traffic information and the unexpected event information are acquired from the traffic jam determining unit ”) Examiner note: It is a design choice to obtain multiple information in order to indicate the current status of the first event. Same rational applied for the following limitation as well.
determine, based on the third information, that the change of the first event occurs; ( Yamazaki, para[33], “the real-time traffic information is undergoing a sudden change…for example, the travel speed is sharply reduced”)
determine, based on the first information, that second description information of the second tile in the map needs to be updated; and update the second description information based on the third information. ( Yamazaki, para[22], “determines that a traffic jam liable to have an effect on the starting place has occurred or will occur in the future. Upon determination that a traffic jam liable to have an effect on the starting place has occurred or will occur in the future, the real-time traffic information and the unexpected event information are sent to the traffic jam arrival time prediction unit ”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method for generating warning polygons from Stenneth to include these above teachings from Yamazaki in order to include obtain third information indicating the current status of the first event; determine, based on the third information, that the change of the first event occurs; determine, based on the first information, that second description information of the second tile in the map needs to be updated; and update the second description information based on the third information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid the traffic jam.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101. Applicant argues that the present claims do not recite mathematical concepts, methods of organizing human activities, or mental processes. Therefore, the claims are patent-eligible.
In response to A). Examiner respectively disagree. Claims 1, 14, 19 recite “generate first information indicating that the first event in a first tile is associated with a second tile, wherein a geographic coverage level of the first tile is based on a geographic range of the first event, wherein the first information further indicates a first tile identifier of the first tile, wherein the first tile identifier is based on the geographic coverage level of the first tile, wherein the first event is a first dynamic event in a map, and wherein the first tile and the second tile are two different tiles in the map”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person taking a look at the traffic data and determining a traffic accident event at a first location increases a congestion degree of a traffic congestion event at the second location, wherein the first location is adjacent to the second location. Thus, the claims 1, 10, 19 recite a mental process. The claim recites additional elements of obtain, from a data source device, detection information indicating a current status of a first event. The receiving step from the sensors and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Store the first information which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity as well. The “apparatus, memories and processors” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose computer environment. Generating the map based in part on the first informational is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the evaluation result from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant post-solution activity. Accordingly, the generating first information step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and § 103. Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/05/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 extension fee 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 KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights