DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/24/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
3. This office action is in response to application number 18/468,095 filed on 09/15/2023, in which the amendments and arguments filed on 02/24/2026.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-13, 15, 17-18, and 21-24 have been amended.
Claim 24 has been added.
Claim 14, 16, 19, and 20 have been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/15/2023 has been received and considered.
Response to Amendment
5. Applicant' s amendments to the Claims have overcome the objection and rejection(s)
previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 11/25/2025. Applicants arguments, see
page 8-14 filed on 02/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-23 under 35
USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been
withdrawn. A new grounds for rejection is made under 35 USC 103 as necessitated by
amendment over Ito (US 6427117 B1) in view of Meng (US 20200128101 A1) further in view of Ghisio (EP 2610838 B1) further in view of Manoliu (US 20150300825 A1) further in view of Haynes (US 20190025841 A1) of Sheha (US 20050075119 A1) further in view of Hemmerle (DE 102014008151 A1) further in view Koponen (US 20230332898 A1) and further in view of Coleman (US 20180348010 A1).
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.
6. Claim(s) 1-2, 7-11, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 6427117 B1) to Ito et al. (hereinafter Ito) in view of (US 20200128101 A1) to Meng et al. (hereinafter Meng) further in view of Ghisio (EP 2610838 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses A method comprising: (Ito Column 2, line number 50-51: “the present invention is directed to a navigation method”) determining, based on a signal from a position determining device, a first position of an object at a first time; (Ito Column 13, line number 11-14: “ identifying the vehicle on which the navigation apparatus 100 is mounted, and vehicle position data (Longitude, Latitude) 164 measured by a position measuring section 104.”) (Ito Column 13, line number 15-17: “The vehicle position data 164 includes a current position data measured by the position measuring section 104 at a predetermined time interval”) (Ito Column 13, line number 30-35: “The position measuring section 104 utilizes GPS and/or the like to measure the position of the vehicle. Namely, the position measuring section 104 is equipped with a GPS receiver to measure the absolute position of the vehicle on the basis of signals received from a plurality of GPS satellites.”) (Note: Because the transmission points are transmitted at different times the first point is PD according to the figure attached) detecting a loss or distortion of the signal from the position determining device at a second time subsequent to the first time; (Ito Column 13, line number 41-43: “GPS receiver is unable to receive signals from the GPS satellites (e.g., when the vehicle is running inside a tunnel or the like)”) (Ito Column 22, line number 13-17: “Namely, this invention makes it possible to transmit navigation data extracted from the newest navigation information to the moving body from the navigation center over the entire time the moving body is traveling to the destination (instead of carrying out such transmission only at the time of departure of the moving body toward the destination).”) (Ito Column 22, line number 29-33: “According to the present invention described above, the moving body can obtain from the navigation center the navigation data extracted from the newest navigation information each time when the moving body reaches the predetermined request transmission points.”) (Note: Because the transmission points are transmitted at different times the second period in time is the tunnel according to the figure attached. It is possible for the location in the tunnel to not be determined ) determining, based on the signal from the position determining device, a second position of the object at a third time subsequent to the second time; (Ito Column 11, line number 50-53: “a recommended route from a current position (the navigation starting point or the departure point) of the vehicle on which the navigation apparatus 100 is mounted to a destination (the navigation ending point)”) (Ito Column 13, line number 31-32: “The position measuring section 104 utilizes GPS and/or the like to measure the position of the vehicle.”) (Note: The second point of the object that carries the navigation apparatus is Destination “PA”)
PNG
media_image1.png
539
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and displaying the most probable route on one of an infotainment screen or mobile device. (Ito column 12, lines 60-67-column 13, lines 1-6: “The navigation apparatus 100 has a processing section 101 which includes a CPU as a main component. Further, the navigation apparatus 100 is provided with a memory 102 having a program storing area 102A for storing various programs run by the processing section 101, such as a route guidance program 150 for displaying routes, landmarks and the like on a display 106 and outputting audio route guidance from an audio output section 107 using route/guidance data (navigation data) received from the navigation center 10; a data request program 152 for producing a request of transmission for next route/guidance data by comparing the current position of the vehicle with the received route/guidance data; and a control program 154 for controlling operations carried out in the navigation apparatus 100..”)
Ito does not disclose […] automatically simulating a plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; ranking, based on at least a similarity to one or more past routes taken by the object and one or more dynamic characteristics of the object at the first position and the second position, the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; estimating a most probable route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position;
However, Meng does teach […] automatically simulating a plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; (Meng Paragraph 0066: “In the example illustrated in FIG. 3B, the virtual agent is simulated to progress from subdivision 350 to subdivision 360 to subdivision 370 and finally to subdivision 380.”) (Meng Paragraph 0069: “Furthermore, the network system can be configured to simulate virtual agent actions for a plurality of angles of travel (e.g., every 20°) in order to obtain a complete set of simulations for the virtual agent starting from initial location (S). For instance, the network system can perform a first set of simulations for the virtual agent with an angle of travel of 0° from the initial position S, a second set of simulations for the virtual agent with an angle of travel of 20°, a third set of simulations for the virtual agent with an angle of 40°, etc. In this manner, the network system can simulate a complete set of possible routes”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito to include […] automatically simulating a plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; taught by Meng. This would have been for the benefit to provide a network system that is provided to manage a network based service that link available service providers with users throughout a given region, in order to determine the most optimal service provider to fulfill a given service. [Meng Paragraph 0011 and 0012]
Meng does not teach […] ranking, based on at least a similarity to one or more past routes taken by the object and one or more dynamic characteristics of the object at the first position and the second position, the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; identifying, as estimating a most probable route taken by the object, a highest-ranked route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position.
However, Ghisio does teach […] ranking, based on at least a similarity to one or more past routes taken by the object and one or more dynamic characteristics of the object at the first position and the second position, the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; (Ghisio Paragraph 0032: “and to a storage subsystem MEM which can record a path history, for example a path followed regularly in predetermined moments of time which can be associated with the vehicle or its driver who is recognized by a personal identification system.”) (Paragraph 0036: “On the basis of the improved probabilities assigned to the road sections, the processing unit P is arranged (programmed) to determine the most probable path MPP' for the vehicle, in step 220. The most probable path comprises a sequence formed by a predetermined number of consecutive road sections, for which there is the highest joint probability of travel on all possible combinations of said predetermined number of consecutive road sections which originate in the intersection or branching node which the vehicle is approaching.”) (Ghisio Paragraph 0040: “In accordance with a path history and the corresponding moment of time received by the MEM subsystem, the processing unit is arranged to assign higher enhanced travel probabilities to road sections included in a habitual path.”) identifying, as estimating a most probable route taken by the object, a highest-ranked route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; (Ghisio Paragraph 0003: “The estimation of the most probable path of a travelling vehicle takes place whenever a vehicle, during its travel, approaches a road intersection or branching node which is the point of origin of a plurality of successive road sections along which the vehicle may travel, in the absence of guided navigation data or knowledge of the destination of the vehicle.”) (Ghisio Paragraph 0037: “On the basis of the improved probabilities, the processing unit P is arranged (programmed) to modify the probability values further as a function of the data obtained from the subsystems TMC, COM and MEM, thus obtaining "enhanced probability" values. The step is shown as the "dynamic determination" of the probabilities in step 300, since it is based on probability assignment parameters which are not known in advance, but are recalculated as a function of specific, rapidly variable events such as changes in traffic conditions, objective manoeuvres by the driver, or entry on to a historic path.”) (Ghisio Paragraph 0041: “On the basis of the enhanced probabilities assigned to the road sections, the processing unit P is arranged (programmed) to determine the most probable path MPP for the vehicle, in step 320.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Meng to include […] ranking, based on at least a similarity to one or more past routes taken by the object and one or more dynamic characteristics of the object at the first position and the second position, the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; identifying, as estimating a most probable route taken by the object, a highest-ranked route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; taught by Ghisio. This would have been for the benefit to provide vehicle driving assistance systems, and more particularly to the determination of the travel probability of sections of a road network and the prediction of the most probable path followed by a vehicle travelling on a road as a function of its location on the road network, for the purpose of controlling the travelling conditions of the vehicle. [Ghisio Paragraph 0001]
Regarding claim 2, Ito discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the position determining device is associated with the object, and wherein the object comprises a vehicle. (Ito Column 9, line number 38-40: “The navigation system according to the present invention includes at least one navigation apparatus (moving body) 100 which can be mounted on, for example, a vehicle”)
Regarding claim 7, Ito discloses The method of claim 1, wherein a position of the object at the second time is not known between the first position of the object and the second position of the object. (Ito Column 18, line number 58-Column 19, line number 5: “In this example, if the requested road length is LR, then the addition of the segment S1 to the segment S2 makes the transmission road length greater than the requested road length LR. However, the navigation apparatus cannot transmit to the navigation center 10 a request for next route/guidance data, because the request transmission point of the segment S2 is located in the tunnel TN. Accordingly, the next segment S3 is added to the transmission road length. Then, because the terminal point of the segment S3 is not an unsuitable communications area, the added segments S1-S3 form the transmission road length, and route data and guidance data related thereto are extracted and transmitted to the navigation apparatus 100.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
547
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Ito discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the position determining device is a global positioning system (GPS) sensor or a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) sensor. (Ito Column 12, line number 61-64: “Further, the navigation apparatus 100 is provided with a memory 102 having a program storing area 102A for storing various programs run by the processing section 101”) (Ito Column 13, line number 7-14: “The memory 102 also has a data storing area 102B which, in addition to serving as a work area utilized when running programs, stores various data, such as route/guidance data (navigation data) 160 transmitted from the navigation center 10, ID data 162 for identifying the vehicle on which the navigation apparatus 100 is mounted, and vehicle position data (Longitude, Latitude) 164 measured by a position measuring section 104.”) (Ito Column 13, line number 30-35: “The position measuring section 104 utilizes GPS and/or the like to measure the position of the vehicle. Namely, the position measuring section 104 is equipped with a GPS receiver to measure the absolute position of the vehicle on the basis of signals received from a plurality of GPS satellites.”)
Regarding claim 9, Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Ito in view of Meng does not teach The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of possible routes are along a mapped road network.
However, Ghisio does teach The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of possible routes are along a mapped road network. (Ghisio Paragraph 0049: “The central processing unit acquires the travel probability data assigned to the sections R2, R3 and R4 following the intersection N for the vehicle V arriving from road R1 (and typically the probability data of a road network travel tree originating from the intersection N, for a depth of several sections, for example five consecutive sections connected by intersection or branching nodes).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Meng to include The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of possible routes are along a mapped road network taught by Ghisio. This would have been for the benefit to provide vehicle driving assistance systems, and more particularly to the determination of the travel probability of sections of a road network and the prediction of the most probable path followed by a vehicle travelling on a road as a function of its location on the road network, for the purpose of controlling the travelling conditions of the vehicle. [Ghisio Paragraph 0001]
Regarding claim 10, Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio teaches claim 9, accordingly, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated above.
Ito in view of Meng does not teach The method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of possible routes are aligned with the mapped road network.
However, Ghisio does teach The method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of possible routes are aligned with the mapped road network. (Ghisio Paragraph 0049: “The central processing unit acquires the travel probability data assigned to the sections R2, R3 and R4 following the intersection N for the vehicle V arriving from road R1 (and typically the probability data of a road network travel tree originating from the intersection N, for a depth of several sections, for example five consecutive sections connected by intersection or branching nodes).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Meng to include The method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of possible routes are aligned with the mapped road network taught by Ghisio. This would have been for the benefit to provide vehicle driving assistance systems, and more particularly to the determination of the travel probability of sections of a road network and the prediction of the most probable path followed by a vehicle travelling on a road as a function of its location on the road network, for the purpose of controlling the travelling conditions of the vehicle. [Ghisio Paragraph 0001]
Regarding claim 11, Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Ito in view of Meng does not teach The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the most probable route taken by the object from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises identifying while the object is in motion.
However, Ghisio does teach The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the most probable route taken by the object from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises identifying while the object is in motion. (Ghisio Paragraph 0002: “There are known on-board systems for estimating or predicting the most probable path followed by a vehicle travelling on a road network, the operation of these systems being based on the assignment of a travel probability to each of a plurality of road sections originating from a road intersection or branching node which can be reached by a vehicle.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Meng to include The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the most probable route taken by the object from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises identifying while the object is in motion taught by Ghisio. This would have been for the benefit to provide vehicle driving assistance systems, and more particularly to the determination of the travel probability of sections of a road network and the prediction of the most probable path followed by a vehicle travelling on a road as a function of its location on the road network, for the purpose of controlling the travelling conditions of the vehicle. [Ghisio Paragraph 0001]
Regarding claim 21, Ito discloses system, comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor that includes instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: (Ito Column 5, line number 37-42: “route guidance is carried out at the moving body using the navigation data received from the navigation center, the system comprising: memory means provided in the navigation center for storing navigation information which includes various information concerning routes;”) determine, based on a signal from a position determining device, a first position of an object at a first time; (Ito Column 13, line number 11-14: “ identifying the vehicle on which the navigation apparatus 100 is mounted, and vehicle position data (Longitude, Latitude) 164 measured by a position measuring section 104.”) (Ito Column 13, line number 15-17: “The vehicle position data 164 includes a current position data measured by the position measuring section 104 at a predetermined time interval”) (Ito Column 13, line number 30-35: “The position measuring section 104 utilizes GPS and/or the like to measure the position of the vehicle. Namely, the position measuring section 104 is equipped with a GPS receiver to measure the absolute position of the vehicle on the basis of signals received from a plurality of GPS satellites.”) (Note: Because the transmission points are transmitted at different times the first point is PD according to the figure attached) detect a loss or distortion of the signal from the position determining device at a second time subsequent to the first time; (Ito Column 13, line number 41-43: “GPS receiver is unable to receive signals from the GPS satellites (e.g., when the vehicle is running inside a tunnel or the like)”) (Ito Column 22, line number 13-17: “Namely, this invention makes it possible to transmit navigation data extracted from the newest navigation information to the moving body from the navigation center over the entire time the moving body is traveling to the destination (instead of carrying out such transmission only at the time of departure of the moving body toward the destination).”) (Ito Column 22, line number 29-33: “According to the present invention described above, the moving body can obtain from the navigation center the navigation data extracted from the newest navigation information each time when the moving body reaches the predetermined request transmission points.”) (Note: Because the transmission points are transmitted at different times the second period in time is the tunnel according to the figure attached. It is possible for the location in the tunnel to not be determined ) determine, based on the signal from the position determining device, a second position of the object at a third time subsequent to the second time; (Ito Column 11, line number 50-53: “a recommended route from a current position (the navigation starting point or the departure point) of the vehicle on which the navigation apparatus 100 is mounted to a destination (the navigation ending point)”) (Ito Column 13, line number 31-32: “The position measuring section 104 utilizes GPS and/or the like to measure the position of the vehicle.”) (Note: The second point of the object that carries the navigation apparatus is Destination “PA”)
PNG
media_image3.png
313
234
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and displaying the most probable route on one of an infotainment screen or mobile device. (Ito column 12, lines 60-67-column 13, lines 1-6: “The navigation apparatus 100 has a processing section 101 which includes a CPU as a main component. Further, the navigation apparatus 100 is provided with a memory 102 having a program storing area 102A for storing various programs run by the processing section 101, such as a route guidance program 150 for displaying routes, landmarks and the like on a display 106 and outputting audio route guidance from an audio output section 107 using route/guidance data (navigation data) received from the navigation center 10; a data request program 152 for producing a request of transmission for next route/guidance data by comparing the current position of the vehicle with the received route/guidance data; and a control program 154 for controlling operations carried out in the navigation apparatus 100..”)
Ito does not disclose […] automatically simulate a plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; rank, based on one or more criteria comprising at least a similarity to past routes taken by the object and one or more dynamic characteristics of the object at the first position and the second position, the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; identify estimating a most probable route taken by the object, a highest-ranked route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position.
However, Meng does teach […] automatically simulate a plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; (Meng Paragraph 0066: “In the example illustrated in FIG. 3B, the virtual agent is simulated to progress from subdivision 350 to subdivision 360 to subdivision 370 and finally to subdivision 380.”) (Meng Paragraph 0069: “Furthermore, the network system can be configured to simulate virtual agent actions for a plurality of angles of travel (e.g., every 20°) in order to obtain a complete set of simulations for the virtual agent starting from initial location (S). For instance, the network system can perform a first set of simulations for the virtual agent with an angle of travel of 0° from the initial position S, a second set of simulations for the virtual agent with an angle of travel of 20°, a third set of simulations for the virtual agent with an angle of 40°, etc. In this manner, the network system can simulate a complete set of possible routes”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito to include […] automatically simulate a plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; taught by Meng. This would have been for the benefit to provide a network system that is provided to manage a network based service that link available service providers with users throughout a given region, in order to determine the most optimal service provider to fulfill a given service. [Meng Paragraph 0011 and 0012]
Meng does not teach […] rank, based on one or more criteria comprising at least a similarity to past routes taken by the object and one or more dynamic characteristics of the object at the first position and the second position, the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; identify estimating a most probable route taken by the object, a highest-ranked route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position.
However, Ghisio does teach […] rank, based on one or more criteria comprising at least a similarity to past routes taken by the object and one or more dynamic characteristics of the object at the first position and the second position, the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; (Ghisio Paragraph 0032: “and to a storage subsystem MEM which can record a path history, for example a path followed regularly in predetermined moments of time which can be associated with the vehicle or its driver who is recognized by a personal identification system.”) (Paragraph 0036: “On the basis of the improved probabilities assigned to the road sections, the processing unit P is arranged (programmed) to determine the most probable path MPP' for the vehicle, in step 220. The most probable path comprises a sequence formed by a predetermined number of consecutive road sections, for which there is the highest joint probability of travel on all possible combinations of said predetermined number of consecutive road sections which originate in the intersection or branching node which the vehicle is approaching.”) (Ghisio Paragraph 0040: “In accordance with a path history and the corresponding moment of time received by the MEM subsystem, the processing unit is arranged to assign higher enhanced travel probabilities to road sections included in a habitual path.”) identify estimating a most probable route taken by the object, a highest-ranked route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; (Ghisio Paragraph 0003: “The estimation of the most probable path of a travelling vehicle takes place whenever a vehicle, during its travel, approaches a road intersection or branching node which is the point of origin of a plurality of successive road sections along which the vehicle may travel, in the absence of guided navigation data or knowledge of the destination of the vehicle.”) (Ghisio Paragraph 0037: “On the basis of the improved probabilities, the processing unit P is arranged (programmed) to modify the probability values further as a function of the data obtained from the subsystems TMC, COM and MEM, thus obtaining "enhanced probability" values. The step is shown as the "dynamic determination" of the probabilities in step 300, since it is based on probability assignment parameters which are not known in advance, but are recalculated as a function of specific, rapidly variable events such as changes in traffic conditions, objective manoeuvres by the driver, or entry on to a historic path.”) (Ghisio Paragraph 0041: “On the basis of the enhanced probabilities assigned to the road sections, the processing unit P is arranged (programmed) to determine the most probable path MPP for the vehicle, in step 320.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Meng to include […] rank, based on one or more criteria comprising at least a similarity to past routes taken by the object and one or more dynamic characteristics of the object at the first position and the second position, the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; identify estimating a most probable route taken by the object, a highest-ranked route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; taught by Ghisio. This would have been for the benefit to provide vehicle driving assistance systems, and more particularly to the determination of the travel probability of sections of a road network and the prediction of the most probable path followed by a vehicle travelling on a road as a function of its location on the road network, for the purpose of controlling the travelling conditions of the vehicle. [Ghisio Paragraph 0001]
7. Claim(s) 3-4 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 6427117 B1) in view of Meng (US 20200128101 A1) further in view of Ghisio (EP 2610838 B1) and further in view of (US 20150300825 A1) to Manoliu et al. (hereinafter Manoliu).
Regarding claim 3, Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio does not teach The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises an object velocity, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises: determining the object velocity at the first position and the object velocity at the second position; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object velocity at the first position and the object velocity at the second position.
However, Manoliu does teach The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises an object velocity, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises: determining the object velocity at the first position and the object velocity at the second position; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object velocity at the first position and the object velocity at the second position. (Manoliu Paragraph 0097: “The method may further comprise the step of calculating a route that is to be followed by the vehicle between an origin and a destination prior to the step of generating the ADAS horizon, and the system may comprise means for calculating a route.”) (Manoliu Paragraph 0150: “A relatively higher probability may be assigned to an outgoing path having an average speed which is closer to the current speed of the vehicle. In other words it may be assumed that the vehicle will continue along a path which requires the smallest change in speed.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio to include The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises an object velocity, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises: determining the object velocity at the first position and the object velocity at the second position; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object velocity at the first position and the object velocity at the second position taught by Manoliu. This would have been for the benefit to provide a driving horizon of an ADAS of a vehicle while the vehicle travels in order to predict paths that a vehicle may travel in the immediate future when generating an ADAS horizon. [Manoliu Paragraph 0007 and 0015]
Regarding claim 4, Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio does not teach The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises an object acceleration, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises: determining the object acceleration at the first position and the object acceleration at the second position; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object acceleration at the first position and the object acceleration at the second position.
However, Manoliu does teach The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises an object acceleration, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises: determining the object acceleration at the first position and the object acceleration at the second position; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object acceleration at the first position and the object acceleration at the second position. (Manoliu Paragraph 0044: “The step of determining the relative probability of a given possible outgoing path may further comprise using data indicative of the incoming path that the vehicle is expected to travel to reach the decision point, attribute data associated with such a path and/or parameters of the vehicle as it travels along the incoming path (e.g. speed, acceleration, etc).”) (Manoliu Paragraph 0097: “The method may further comprise the step of calculating a route that is to be followed by the vehicle between an origin and a destination prior to the step of generating the ADAS horizon, and the system may comprise means for calculating a route.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio to include The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises an object acceleration, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises: determining the object acceleration at the first position and the object acceleration at the second position; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object acceleration at the first position and the object acceleration at the second position taught by Manoliu. This would have been for the benefit to provide a driving horizon of an ADAS of a vehicle while the vehicle travels in order to predict paths that a vehicle may travel in the immediate future when generating an ADAS horizon. [Manoliu Paragraph 0007 and 0015]
Regarding claim 22, Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio teaches claim 21, accordingly, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated above.
Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio does not teach The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises an object velocity, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to rank the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position by: determining the object velocity at the first position and the object velocity at the second position; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object velocity at the first position and the object velocity at the second position.
However, Manoliu does teach The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises an object velocity, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to rank the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position by: determining the object velocity at the first position and the object velocity at the second position; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object velocity at the first position and the object velocity at the second position. (Manoliu Paragraph 0097: “The method may further comprise the step of calculating a route that is to be followed by the vehicle between an origin and a destination prior to the step of generating the ADAS horizon, and the system may comprise means for calculating a route.”) (Manoliu Paragraph 0150: “A relatively higher probability may be assigned to an outgoing path having an average speed which is closer to the current speed of the vehicle. In other words it may be assumed that the vehicle will continue along a path which requires the smallest change in speed.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio to include The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises an object velocity, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to rank the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position by: determining the object velocity at the first position and the object velocity at the second position; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object velocity at the first position and the object velocity at the second position taught by Manoliu. This would have been for the benefit to provide a driving horizon of an ADAS of a vehicle while the vehicle travels in order to predict paths that a vehicle may travel in the immediate future when generating an ADAS horizon. [Manoliu Paragraph 0007 and 0015]
Regarding claim 23, Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio teaches claim 21, accordingly, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated above.
Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio does not teach The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises an object acceleration, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to rank the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position by: determining the object acceleration at the first position and the object acceleration at the second position; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object acceleration at the first position and the object acceleration at the second position.
However, Manoliu does teach The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises an object acceleration, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to rank the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position by: determining the object acceleration at the first position and the object acceleration at the second position; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object acceleration at the first position and the object acceleration at the second position. (Manoliu Paragraph 0044: “The step of determining the relative probability of a given possible outgoing path may further comprise using data indicative of the incoming path that the vehicle is expected to travel to reach the decision point, attribute data associated with such a path and/or parameters of the vehicle as it travels along the incoming path (e.g. speed, acceleration, etc).”) (Manoliu Paragraph 0097: “The method may further comprise the step of calculating a route that is to be followed by the vehicle between an origin and a destination prior to the step of generating the ADAS horizon, and the system may comprise means for calculating a route.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio to include The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises an object acceleration, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to rank the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position by: determining the object acceleration at the first position and the object acceleration at the second position; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object acceleration at the first position and the object acceleration at the second position taught by Manoliu. This would have been for the benefit to provide a driving horizon of an ADAS of a vehicle while the vehicle travels in order to predict paths that a vehicle may travel in the immediate future when generating an ADAS horizon. [Manoliu Paragraph 0007 and 0015]
8. Claim(s) 5 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 6427117 B1) in view of Meng (US 20200128101 A1) further in view of Ghisio (EP 2610838 B1) and further in view of (US 20190025841 A1) to Haynes et al. (hereinafter Haynes).
Regarding claim 5, Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio does not teach The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises object yaw, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises: determining the object yaw at the first position and the object yaw at the second position, wherein the object yaw indicates one of a left-hand turn or a right-hand turn performed by the object; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object yaw at the first position and the object yaw at the second position.
However, Haynes does teach The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises object yaw, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises: determining the object yaw at the first position and the object yaw at the second position, wherein the object yaw indicates one of a left-hand turn or a right-hand turn performed by the object; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object yaw at the first position and the object yaw at the second position. (Haynes Paragraph 0019: “In some implementations, the prediction system can be a goal-oriented prediction system that, for each object perceived by the autonomous vehicle, generates one or more potential goals, selects one or more of the potential goals, and develops one or more trajectories by which the object can achieve the one or more selected goals”) (Haynes Paragraph 0041: “However, in some implementations, if an object is classified as or otherwise adjudged to be not static, then additional goals which correspond to at least some motion of the object can be generated, scored, ranked, and/or culled by the scenario generation system.”) (Haynes Paragraph 0042: “Generally, scenario goal generation can be performed according to any number of different strategies including, for example, multi-class classification (e.g., left turn versus right turn versus continuing straight), two-dimensional probability density, regression on two-dimensional goal points, and/or other techniques.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio to include The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises object yaw, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises: determining the object yaw at the first position and the object yaw at the second position, wherein the object yaw indicates one of a left-hand turn or a right-hand turn performed by the object; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object yaw at the first position and the object yaw at the second position taught by Haynes. This would have been for the benefit to provide at least one of the one or more goals generated by the scenario generation system; and determine at least one predicted trajectory by which the object achieves the at least one of the one or more goals in order to perceive the location of objects that are proximate to the autonomous vehicle and, further, to predict or otherwise understand where such object will be in the near future. [Haynes Paragraph 0003 and 0005]
Regarding claim 24, Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio teaches claim 21, accordingly, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated above.
Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio does not teach The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises an object yaw, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises: determining the object yaw at the first position and the object yaw at the second position, wherein the object yaw indicates one of a left-hand turn or a right-hand turn performed by the object; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object yaw at the first position and the object yaw at the second position.
However, Haynes does teach The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises an object yaw, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises: determining the object yaw at the first position and the object yaw at the second position, wherein the object yaw indicates one of a left-hand turn or a right-hand turn performed by the object; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object yaw at the first position and the object yaw at the second position. (Haynes Paragraph 0019: “In some implementations, the prediction system can be a goal-oriented prediction system that, for each object perceived by the autonomous vehicle, generates one or more potential goals, selects one or more of the potential goals, and develops one or more trajectories by which the object can achieve the one or more selected goals”) (Haynes Paragraph 0041: “However, in some implementations, if an object is classified as or otherwise adjudged to be not static, then additional goals which correspond to at least some motion of the object can be generated, scored, ranked, and/or culled by the scenario generation system.”) (Haynes Paragraph 0042: “Generally, scenario goal generation can be performed according to any number of different strategies including, for example, multi-class classification (e.g., left turn versus right turn versus continuing straight), two-dimensional probability density, regression on two-dimensional goal points, and/or other techniques.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio to include The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises an object yaw, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises: determining the object yaw at the first position and the object yaw at the second position, wherein the object yaw indicates one of a left-hand turn or a right-hand turn performed by the object; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object yaw at the first position and the object yaw at the second position taught by Haynes. This would have been for the benefit to provide at least one of the one or more goals generated by the scenario generation system; and determine at least one predicted trajectory by which the object achieves the at least one of the one or more goals in order to perceive the location of objects that are proximate to the autonomous vehicle and, further, to predict or otherwise understand where such object will be in the near future. [Haynes Paragraph 0003 and 0005]
9. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 6427117 B1) in view of Meng (US 20200128101 A1) further in view of Ghisio (EP 2610838 B1) and further in view of (US 20050075119 A1) to Sheha et al. (hereinafter Sheha).
Regarding claim 6, Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio does not teach The method of claim 1,wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises computing distances for the plurality of possible routes, and wherein identifying the highest-ranked route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises identifying a route having a shortest distance.
However, Sheha does teach The method of claim 1,wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises computing distances for the plurality of possible routes, and wherein identifying the highest-ranked route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises identifying a route having a shortest distance. (Sheha Paragraph 0027: “The satellite points or central point can include real-time location updates from mobile devices, and known position points, such as POIs (i.e., stationary points), or the like.”) (Sheha Paragraph 0028: “After calculating the estimated distance and time for each satellite mobile device (i.e., satellite implies surrounding the central address point), the mobile devices are preferably ranked or sorted based on various metrics, such as distance, time, fuel usage, etc.”) (Sheha Paragraph 0082: “Using the provided route preferences, the most probable route 600 that the mobile device traveled between Point TI 400 and Point T2 401 is illustrated in FIG. 6. This route includes the shortest distance and fastest time route between the two points.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio to include The method of claim 1,wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises computing distances for the plurality of possible routes, and wherein identifying the highest-ranked route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises identifying a route having a shortest distance taught by Sheha. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method and system for enabling dynamic estimated routing calculations between location points generated from a mobile device with access to its own location (i.e., position) information, and also displaying said calculated route on a map display of varying size and resolution. [Sheha Paragraph 0011]
10. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 6427117 B1) in view of Meng (US 20200128101 A1) further in view of Ghisio (EP 2610838 B1) and further in view of Hemmerle (DE 102014008151 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio does not teach The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the most probable route taken by the object from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises identifying after the object has become motionless.
However, Hemmerle does teach The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the most probable route taken by the object from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises identifying after the object has become motionless. (Hemmerle Paragraph 0025: “According to a further aspect, the user can select an autonomous ride at any time without active route guidance, for. B. in a traffic jam, and he can then take over the vehicle in a deviation of the automatic drive from his destination again, since for an automatic drive, the input of a target can not assume. An automatic trip can then take place along a most probable route (eg along the highway). According to one aspect, the user can acoustically / visually inform themselves about the course of this most probable route and thus prepare for the takeover. The user can specify points of a desired takeover along this most probable route, which the vehicle then acoustically / visually / haptically signals when it is reached.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Meng further in view of Ghisio to include The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the most probable route taken by the object from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises identifying after the object has become motionless taught by Hemmerle. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method for operating a motor vehicle of the type mentioned in that the driver is given a better planning basis for autonomous driving. [Hemmerle Paragraph 0006]
11. Claim(s) 13, 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20230332898 A1) to Koponen et al. (hereinafter Koponen) in view of (US 20180348010 A1) to Coleman et al. (hereinafter Coleman).
Regarding claim 13, Koponen discloses A method comprising: tracking, based on a signal from a position determining device, a route of an object along a mapped path to determine an actual route of the object; (Koponen Paragraph 0005: “It is also usual for devices to display map information on-screen during the navigation, such information regularly being updated on-screen so that the map information displayed is representative of the current location of the device, and thus of the user or user's vehicle if the device is being used for in-vehicle navigation.”) (Koponen Paragraph 0007: “The map matched position is received by one or more client devices or software modules 40, for example, for use in determining a route from a current position to a destination,”) detecting a loss or distortion of the signal from the position determining device; (Koponen Paragraph 0166: “For example, jumps may be allowed where there has been a relatively large gap between input position data samples, e.g. due to a tunnel.”) determining a difference between the actual route and a detected route by determining the detected route is outside of the mapped path; (Koponen Paragraph 0166: “The estimated current position for output may or may not lie on the identified best matching candidate path.”) (Koponen Paragraph 0166: “However, in some situations, the identified candidate path that is the best match to the new position data sample may differ from that identified in relation to the previous data sample. In such cases the decision engine may decide whether to “jump” to the new candidate path, or remain with the previous candidate path, even though it is no longer the best match. Such a determination may depend upon various factors.”) simulating a plurality of possible corrected routes that project in a plurality of directions originating from a location of the loss or distortion of the signal from the position determining device; (Koponen Paragraph 0039: “The positional data may comprise any suitable data indicative of the position of the device. The device may be any device whose position is desired to be matched to a map.”) (Koponen Paragraph 0059: “One such case is where the current position in a tunnel. In some embodiments the method may comprise determining that the current position is in, or approaching, a tunnel. This may be inferred from an absence of satellite based positioning data for a period exceeding a given threshold. An approaching tunnel may be detected using map data. The method may then comprise expanding candidate paths only along segments that lead to an exit of the tunnel.”)
Koponen does not disclose […] ranking, based on at least a similarity to one or more past routes taken by the object, the plurality of possible corrected routes, wherein ranking the plurality of possible corrected routes comprises determining a possible corrected route that more closely matches the one or more past routes taken by the object as more likely than a possible corrected route that differs from the one or more past routes taken by the object; identifying, as a most probable corrected route taken by the object, a highest-ranked route from among the plurality of possible corrected routes; and displaying the most probable corrected route on one of an infotainment screen or mobile device.
However, Coleman does teach […] ranking, based on at least a similarity to one or more past routes taken by the object, the plurality of possible corrected routes, (Coleman Paragraph 0077: “ It may be unlikely for the exact location progression 600 to repeat due to variables such as differences in commute timing, occasional deviations from the route,”) (Coleman Paragraph 0079: “Routing module 132 can correlate locations 602 to points on one or more roads 201. Routing module 132 can correct for discrepancies in routes (e.g., due to errors in location data collection) by fitting locations 602 to a known path provided by known locations of roads 201.”) (Coleman Paragraph 0079: “User route 610 can be a route frequently taken by the user.”) (Coleman paragraph 0083: “In some implementations, routing module 132 can rank routes received from map service 104 according to the number of records in map data database 136 with which each route correlates. For example, routing module 132 can determine that route 206C correlates with 100 user routes stored in map data database 136, route 206A correlates with 30 user routes stored in map data database 136, and route 206B correlates with 8 user routes stored in map data database 136. Routing module 132 can rank route 206C highest, route 206A second highest, and route 206B lowest.”) wherein ranking the plurality of possible corrected routes comprises determining a possible corrected route that more closely matches the one or more past routes taken by the object as more likely than a possible corrected route that differs from the one or more past routes taken by the object; (Coleman Paragraph 0084: “In some implementations, map application 134 can use the rankings determined by routing module 132 to recommend routes to the user. For example, a route ranked highest can be the most relevant to the user. Accordingly, map application 134 can present the highest-ranked route to the user. For example, if multiple routes are predicted to take the same amount of time to travel, map application 134 can select the highest-ranked route for presentation to the user. In some implementations, map application 134 can present the highest-ranked route to the user even when a lower-ranked route is predicted to be faster.”) identifying, as a most probable corrected route taken by the object, a highest-ranked route from among the plurality of possible corrected routes; (Coleman Paragraph 0139: “At step 1108, routing module 132 can determine a route having a highest count in collected data database 142 is a top route (e.g., a route most frequently used by the user).”) and displaying the most probable corrected route on one of an infotainment screen or mobile device. (Coleman paragraph 0086: “For example, selecting the notification can bring up map navigation GUI 500 of FIG. 5, as discussed above. Map application GUI 500 can show map 502 with information related to the top route displayed thereon.”) (Coleman Paragraph 0141: “In another example, routing module 132 can supply the top route information to map application 134 for display in a navigation GUI.”)
PNG
media_image4.png
465
479
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Koponen to include […] ranking, based on at least a similarity to one or more past routes taken by the object, the plurality of possible corrected routes, wherein ranking the plurality of possible corrected routes comprises determining a possible corrected route that more closely matches the one or more past routes taken by the object as more likely than a possible corrected route that differs from the one or more past routes taken by the object; identifying, as a most probable corrected route taken by the object, a highest-ranked route from among the plurality of possible corrected routes; and displaying the most probable corrected route on one of an infotainment screen or mobile device taught by Coleman. This would have been for the benefit to provide a computing device that can rank routes between a starting location and a destination based on automatically-determined user interest so the user is familiar with a route and adjust the information presented to the user about the route accordingly. Thus, making it possible to route the user around traffic incidents in a way that fits the user's specific needs. [Coleman Paragraph 0002 and 0003]
Regarding claim 15, Koponen discloses The method of claim 13, wherein ranking the plurality of possible corrected routes further comprises: determining one or more dynamic characteristics of the object, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises object velocity at the location of the loss or distortion of the signal from the position determining device; and ranking the plurality of possible corrected routes based at least partially on the object velocity at the location of the loss or distortion of the signal from the position determining device. (Koponen Paragraph 0059: “In some embodiments the method may comprise determining that the current position is in, or approaching, a tunnel. This may be inferred from an absence of satellite based positioning data for a period exceeding a given threshold. An approaching tunnel may be detected using map data. The method may then comprise expanding candidate paths only along segments that lead to an exit of the tunnel.”) (Koponen Paragraph 0189: “Further matchers such as a distance travelled matcher 251 and a speed limit matcher 252 may also be used.”) (Koponen Paragraph 0189: “The match scores from each of the matchers 231,232,251,252 are then combined in a multi-matcher belief fusion module 260”) (Koponen Paragraph 0190: “Once each path has been assigned a combined multi-matcher belief fusion score, path ranking module 270 ranks the paths according to this score, and this ranking is used to find the best path.”) (Note: Speed limit matchers are partly based on velocity)
PNG
media_image5.png
569
498
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Koponen discloses The method of claim 13, wherein ranking the plurality of possible corrected routes further comprises: determining one or more dynamic characteristics of the object, wherein the one or more dynamic characteristics of the object comprises object acceleration at the location of the loss or distortion of the signal from the position determining device; and ranking the plurality of corrected routes based at least partially on the object acceleration at the location of the loss or distortion of the signal from the position determining device. (Koponen Paragraph 0059: “In some embodiments the method may comprise determining that the current position is in, or approaching, a tunnel. This may be inferred from an absence of satellite based positioning data for a period exceeding a given threshold. An approaching tunnel may be detected using map data. The method may then comprise expanding candidate paths only along segments that lead to an exit of the tunnel.”) (Koponen Paragraph 0189: “Further matchers such as a distance travelled matcher 251 and a speed limit matcher 252 may also be used.”) (Koponen Paragraph 0189: “The match scores from each of the matchers 231,232,251,252 are then combined in a multi-matcher belief fusion module 260”) (Koponen Paragraph 0190: “Once each path has been assigned a combined multi-matcher belief fusion score, path ranking module 270 ranks the paths according to this score, and this ranking is used to find the best path.”) (Note: Speed limit matchers are partly based on acceleration)
PNG
media_image5.png
569
498
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Koponen discloses The method of claim 13, wherein the position determining device is associated with the object, wherein the object comprises a vehicle, and wherein the position determining device is a global positioning system (GPS) sensor or a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) sensor. (Koponen Paragraph 0002: “Portable navigation devices (PNDs) that include GPS (Global Positioning System) signal reception and processing functionality are well known, and are widely employed as in-car or other vehicle navigation systems.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM M-Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. 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.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights