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 Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on June 12, 2025.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are currently amended.
Claims 3-4 are currently canceled.
Claims 6-14 are newly added.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-14 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements that were filed on June 12, 2025 and September 11, 2025 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the Examiner. Initialed copies of the 1449 Forms are enclosed herewith.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that if the limitation of “automatically controlling a driving distance of the target vehicle by using the information of the distribution and the position information of the incident” was explicitly recited this may be considered a practical application. The way that the claim currently reads is that the information is transmitted, via the communication unit, to the target vehicle that provides instructions for the autonomous control but does not go far enough to explicitly claim autonomous control.
Therefore, the outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained but are modified in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot.
Applicant argues that neither Fuchs nor Averilla teaches the newly added limitation of “transmit, via the communication unit, to the target vehicle, information of the distribution for the map tile including a current position of the target vehicle and the position information of the incident, to automatically control a driving distance of the target vehicle by using the information of the distribution and the position information of the incident.”
After updating the search, a new reference has been cited (Kitahara, et al, Publication US 2023/0204386 A1) that, in combination with the teachings of Fuchs and Averilla discloses the newly added limitation.
Therefore, the outstanding 35 USC 103 rejections are maintained but are modified in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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 1-2 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG).
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally
link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a device (i.e., an apparatus).
Claim 5 is directed to a method (i.e., a process).
Claim 8 is directed to a system (i.e., an apparatus).
Therefore, claims 1, 5, and 8 are each within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim (representing claims 5 and 8) for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
An information providing device comprising:
a communication unit configured to communicate with a plurality of vehicles;
a storage unit storing a distribution of vehicle speeds corresponding to a traveling direction in each of an automobile dedicated road and a general road on each of map tiles and position information of an incident that has occurred on a road; and
a processor configured to
identify, among the plurality of vehicles, a target vehicle located on a map tile in which the incident has occurred, and
transmit, via the communication unit, to the target vehicle, information of the distribution for the map tile including a current position of the target vehicle and the position information of the incident, to automatically control a driving distance of the target vehicle by using the information of the distribution and the position information of the incident.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “storing a distribution of vehicle speeds” and “identifying a target vehicle located on a map tile in which the incident has occurred” in the context of this claim encompasses a person remembering a distribution of vehicle speeds corresponding to a traveling direction in each of an automobile dedicated road and a general road on each of map tiles. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information providing device comprising:
a communication unit configured to communicate with a plurality of vehicles;
a storage unit storing a distribution of vehicle speeds corresponding to a traveling direction in each of an automobile dedicated road and a general road on each of map tiles and position information of an incident that has occurred on a road; and
a processor configured to
identify, among the plurality of vehicles, a target vehicle located on a map tile in which the incident has occurred, and
transmit, via the communication unit, to the target vehicle, information of the distribution for the map tile including a current position of the target vehicle and the position information of the incident, to automatically control a driving distance of the target vehicle by using the information of the distribution and the position information of the incident.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a communication unit capable of communicating with a plurality of vehicles”; “a storage unit”; and a processor configured to … transmit, via the communication unit, to the target vehicle, information of the distribution for the map tile including a current position of the target vehicle and the position information of the incident, to automatically control a driving distance of the target vehicle by using the information of the distribution and the position information of the incident” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental process(es) in a generic or general purpose navigation environment. The at least one processor and communicatively connected memory are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the abstract idea steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the “storing a distribution of vehicle speeds corresponding to a traveling direction in each of an automobile dedicated road and a general road on each of map tiles and position information of an incident that has occurred on a road” and “identify, among the plurality of vehicles, a target vehicle located on a map tile in which the incident has occurred” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “a communication unit capable of communicating with a plurality of vehicles”; “a storage unit”; and a processor configured to … transmit, via the communication unit, to the target vehicle, information of the distribution for the map tile including a current position of the target vehicle and the position information of the incident, to automatically control a driving distance of the target vehicle by using the information of the distribution and the position information of the incident” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “a communication unit capable of communicating with a plurality of vehicles”; “a storage unit”; and a processor configured to … transmit, via the communication unit, to the target vehicle, information of the distribution for the map tile including a current position of the target vehicle and the position information of the incident, to automatically control a driving distance of the target vehicle by using the information of the distribution and the position information of the incident”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a navigation system. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp. 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 6-7, and 9-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 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 2, 6-7, and 9-14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
The Examiner notes that if the limitation of “automatically controlling a driving distance of the target vehicle by using the information of the distribution and the position information of the incident” was explicitly recited this may be considered a practical application. The way that the claim currently reads is that the information is transmitted, via the communication unit, to the target vehicle that provides instructions for the autonomous control but does not go far enough to explicitly claim autonomous control.
Therefore, claims 1-2 and 5-14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs, Publication US 2016/0047666 A1, in view of Averilla, Publication US 2022/0276060 A1, and further in view of Kitahara, et al., Publiation 2023/0204386 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Fuchs”, “Averilla”, and “Kitahara”, respectively.)
As per claim 8 (representative of claims 1 and 5), Fuchs discloses an information providing device comprising:
an information providing device [see at least Fuchs [0006] Thus, an object of the present invention is a system for updating a database of authorized traffic speed limits of vehicles on at least one section concerned of a road network, including a remote server comprising said speed limits database, an average speeds database, means of communicating with an on-board system on each vehicle,"]; and
… the information providing device includes:
a communication unit configured to communicate with the plurality of vehicles [see at least Fuchs [0165] "…Wired or wireless communication modules functionally connecting the various other modules."];
a storage unit storing a distribution of vehicle speeds corresponding to a traveling direction in each of an automobile dedicated road and a general road on each of map tiles and position information of an incident that has occurred on a road [see at least Fuchs [0019] "Crowd Sourced: Information that is gathered from voluntary (or otherwise) information that is contributed to a website or webservice via an internet link. This information can be anything from verbal reports concerning traffic, to GPS tracks that observe a drivers location and speed in real-time, which can then subsequently be used to update maps and other information pertaining to traffic or hazard."; [0033] "Actual speed driven"; [0047] "Direction of travel"; [0089] "FIG. 2 show one example of a hazard map. ... transportation segments are depicted with superimposed indications of hazard: one segment with a single lane 212 ... and with two lanes 208."; [0015] "Incident: A single occurrence of a measured parameter. For example an individual accident report is an incident of the parameter accidents; a recorded speed of an individual driver along a segment of road is an incident of speed of travel for that segment."; [0159] "...Therefore the risk database could simply contain accident incidents that are related to individual transportation segments. If available, additional attribution that may be recorded with accident incidents are, for example, direction of travel, time of day, date, and weather variables."; [0160] "[0160] Another embodiment comprises assembling an accident incident database and linking accidents incidents to transportation elements 402. "]; and
a processor configured to [see at least Fuchs [0168] "A compilation module which can be implemented in software running on a computer processor which performs statistical analysis to determine vehicle driving risk indices based on the attribution in the database module and from external sources of information."]
… transmit, via the communication unit, to the target vehicle, information (of the distribution) for the map tile including a current position of the target vehicle and the position information of the incident, … [see at least Fuchs [0075] "A system that comprises a database, software and hardware to predict driving risk and display it for the driver of a vehicle is included in embodiments of this invention."; [0087] "The model can then be used with real-time information 106 acquired in the vicinity of the location of a moving vehicle or within a defined map area ... . The model then generates risk indexes...for each transportation segment of interest"]
Fuchs fails to disclose … transmit information of the speed distribution to the target vehicle … . However, Averillla teaches this limitation [See at least Averilla [0096] "...the remotely located database 134 stores and transmits historical information about driving properties (e.g., speed ...) of vehicles that have previously traveled along trajectory 198 at similar times of day. In one implementation, such data may be stored on the memory 144 on the AV 100, or transmitted to the AV 100 via a communications channel from the remotely located database 134."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Fuchs to use … transmit information of the speed distribution to the target vehicle … as disclosed in Averilla with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of a more accurate and computationally less expensive navigation of an autonomous vehicle (AV). [See at least Averilla [0190].]
The combination of Fuchs and Averilla fails to disclose … transmit, via the communication unit, to the target vehicle, information … to automatically control a driving distance of the target vehicle by using the information of the distribution and the position information of the incident. However, Kitahara teaches this limitation [see at least Kitahara [0199] "...the distribution processing unit G5 distributes only the map data related to the difficult places to the vehicle."; [0044] "By performing wireless communication with the map server 3, the vehicle control system 1 downloads partial map data, which is local high-definition map data, from the map server 3, and uses it for … automatic driving."; [0155] "… the map server 3 may instruct vehicles passing through a point set as a difficult place candidate to report the execution status of the automatic control function, for counting the number of vehicles passing through the point and for collecting a continuation state of the automatic control function from each vehicle."; [0194] "...This map tile corresponds to distribution map data related to a difficult place to be processed. The map tile for distribution related to the difficult place set in step S207 is also referred to as a difficult place map tile. A difficult place map tile corresponds to an example of difficult place area data, which is distribution map data for a difficult place."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in the combination of Fuchs and Averilla to use … transmit, via the communication unit, to the target vehicle, information … to automatically control a driving distance of the target vehicle by using the information of the distribution and the position information of the incident as disclosed in Kitahara with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved accuracy estimating a position of a vehicle. [See at least Kitahara [0182].]
As per claim 9 (representative of claim 2), Fuchs discloses … wherein the processor is configured to create the distribution by adding data transmitted from a probing vehicle among the plurality of vehicles [see at least Fuchs [0099] "...form of attribution that can be associated with an incident should be added 412 so that it can be analyzed to see if there is any correlation with risk."; [0101] "It should be noted that initially accident reports (and other parameters) would come from historical data such as police reports, however, this could be supplanted by real time information coming from vehicle sensors."]
Claims 6, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs, in view of Averilla, further in view of Kitahara, and further in view of Suzuki, EP 3951742 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Kitahara”.)
As per claim 10 (representative of claim 6), the combination of Fuchs, Averilla, and Kitahara fails to disclose … wherein the processor is configured to delete, from the distribution, the data transmitted from the probing vehicle in which a predetermined time has elapsed from a time at which the data was acquired by the probing vehicle. However, Suzuki teaches this limitation [see at least Suzuki [0113] "… (a) When the driving mode switching positions (• marks, ○ marks) are registered in the travel route map M, after an arbitrary period of time has elapsed since the registration, the information regarding the driving mode switching positions (• marks, ○ marks) is deleted (lapse of arbitrary period condition)."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in the combination of Fuchs, Averilla, and Kitahara to use … wherein the processor is configured to delete, from the distribution, the data transmitted from the probing vehicle in which a predetermined time has elapsed from a time at which the data was acquired by the probing vehicle as disclosed in Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved travel route completion reliability. [See at least Suzuki [0005].]
As per claim 7, Fuchs discloses … wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the probing vehicle is travelling on the automobile dedicated road or the general road based on history data of latitude and longitude of the probing vehicle and map information stored in the storage unit [see at least Fuchs [0015] "Incident: A single occurrence of a measured parameter. For example an individual accident report is an incident of the parameter accidents; a recorded speed of an individual driver along a segment of road is an incident of speed of travel for that segment."; [0159] "...Therefore the risk database could simply contain accident incidents that are related to individual transportation segments. If available, additional attribution that may be recorded with accident incidents are, for example, direction of travel, time of day, date, and weather variables."; [0160] "[0160] Another embodiment comprises assembling an accident incident database and linking accidents incidents to transportation elements 402. "]
As per claim 11, the combination of Fuchs and Averilla fails to disclose … wherein the target vehicle includes a processor configured to calculate a travelling direction by using historical data of latitude and longitude of the target vehicle. However, Kitahara teaches this limitation [see at least Kitahara [0098] "The position of the subject vehicle as a result of the localization process may be expressed in the same coordinate system as map data, such as latitude, longitude…"; FIG. 4 "processor 21"; "locator 13"]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in the combination of Fuchs and Averilla to use … wherein the target vehicle includes a processor configured to calculate a travelling direction by using historical data of latitude and longitude of the target vehicle as disclosed in Kitahara with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved accuracy estimating a position of a vehicle. [See at least Kitahara [0182].]
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs, in view of Averilla, further in view of Kitahara, further in view of Suzuki, and further in view of Zhao, Publication US 2004/0068364 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Zhao”.)
As per claim 12, the combination of Fuchs and Averilla fails to disclose … transmitting the latitude and longitude of the target vehicle … . However, Kitahara teaches this limitation [see at least Kitahara [0098] "The position of the subject vehicle as a result of the localization process may be expressed in the same coordinate system as map data, such as latitude, longitude…"; FIG. 4 "processor 21"; "locator 13".]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in the combination of Fuchs and Averilla to use … transmitting the latitude and longitude of the target vehicle … as disclosed in Kitahara with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved accuracy estimating a position of a vehicle. [See at least Kitahara [0182].]
The combination of Fuchs, Averilla, Kitahara, and Suzuki fails to disclose … wherein the processor of the target vehicle is configured to, by transmitting the …{location} … of the target vehicle, request the information providing device to provide the information of the distribution and the position information of the incident. However, Zhao teaches this limitation [see at least Zhao [0017] "...(f) identifying a subscriber that may be affected by the change in the traffic condition using the determined geographic location of the subscriber and data from the subscriber database; and then (g) automatically transmitting a traffic notification message to the identified subscriber to thereby provide updated relevant traffic information to the subscriber without requiring the subscriber to call, respond to prompts or enter a request to a remote traffic monitoring service for updated traffic information in transit."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in the combination of Fuchs, Averilla, Kitahara, and Suzuki to use … wherein the processor of the target vehicle is configured to, by transmitting the …{location} … of the target vehicle, request the information providing device to provide the information of the distribution and the position information of the incident as disclosed in Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved traffic flow information. [See at least Zhao [0004].]
As per claim 13, Fuchs discloses … the processor … is configured to, upon receiving the information of the distribution and the position information of the incident, determine whether a type of a road on which the incident exists matches a type of a road on which the target vehicle is travelling by using the information of the distribution [see at least Fuchs [0038] "Vehicle type access"]
Fuchs fails to disclose … the processor of the target vehicle … . However, Averilla teaches this limitation [see at least Averilla [0004] "Techniques are provided for automatic annotation of environmental features in a map during navigation of a vehicle. The techniques include receiving, using one or more processors of a vehicle located within an environment, a map of the environment. One or more sensors of the vehicle receive sensor data and semantic data. The sensor data includes a plurality of features of the environment. From the sensor data, a geometric model is generated of a feature of the plurality of features.]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Fuchs to use … the processor of the target vehicle … as disclosed in Averilla with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of a more accurate and computationally less expensive navigation of an autonomous vehicle (AV). [See at least Averilla [0190].]
As per claim 14, the combination of Fuchs and Averilla fails to disclose … wherein the processor of the target vehicle is configured to, in response to the type of the road on which the incident exists matching the type of the road on which the target vehicle is travelling and the incident being located in front of the target vehicle, determine that the incident exist on a travel route of the target vehicle. However, Kitahara teaches this limitation [see at least Kitahara [0108] "Furthermore, when it is confirmed that an obstacle exists in front of the vehicle based on the detection result of ... the map data while traveling on a road section other than the intersection, the control planning unit F7 may generate a travel plan that passes by the side of the obstacle. Such a travel plan may include acceleration/deceleration schedule information for speed adjustment on a calculated route.]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in the combination of Fuchs and Averilla to use … wherein the processor of the target vehicle is configured to, in response to the type of the road on which the incident exists matching the type of the road on which the target vehicle is travelling and the incident being located in front of the target vehicle, determine that the incident exist on a travel route of the target vehicle as disclosed in Kitahara with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved accuracy estimating a position of a vehicle. [See at least Kitahara [0182].]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668