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 application number 18/536,308 filed on 12/12/2023, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/14/2024 have been received and considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Device and method for updating maps in autonomous driving systems in bandwidth constrained networks.
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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III)
Claim 1. A method for authenticating features reported by a vehicle, the method including:
receiving, from a network, a map of an area with confidence weights corresponding to each feature on the map and/or a list of trusted users [extra solution activity: Data gathering];
upon the vehicle entering the area, checking whether the vehicle is on the list of trusted users [mental process/step];
and checking features reported from the vehicle and matching the features to the map of the area [mental process/step].
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites A method for authenticating features reported by a vehicle, the method including: The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of upon the vehicle entering the area, checking whether the vehicle is on the list of trusted users; and checking features reported from the vehicle and matching the features to the map of the area. This limitation, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “receiving, from a network, a map of an area with confidence weights corresponding to each feature on the map and/or a list of trusted users”. That is, other than reciting “receiving, from a network, a map of an area with confidence weights corresponding to each feature on the map and/or a list of trusted users” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “receiving, from a network, a map of an area with confidence weights corresponding to each feature on the map and/or a list of trusted users” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of receiving, from a network, a map of an area with confidence weights corresponding to each feature on the map and/or a list of trusted users does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of receiving, from a network, a map of an area with confidence weights corresponding to each feature on the map and/or a list of trusted users … The receiving, from a network is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving from a network a map of an area with confidence weights that correspond to each feature on a map), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than extra solution activity. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, from a network, a map of an area with confidence weights corresponding to each feature on the map and/or a list of trusted users considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The background recites that “maps which provide an accurate depiction of a vehicle’s environment in real-time (or as close to real-time as possible) in a network-friendly manner.” as something that was previously set forth (See Paragraph 0003), and the specification does not provide any indication that receiving, from a network, a map of an area with confidence weights corresponding to each feature on the map and/or a list of trusted users is anything other than receiving data from a network. The specification Further does not provide any indication that the receiving from a network data is anything other than a network that that communicates data. (See Paragraph 0093-0094). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)
Hence, the specification indicates that mere receiving, from a network, a map of an area with confidence weights corresponding to each feature on the map is/are a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that using receiving, from a network, a map of an area with confidence weights are well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
2. Independent device claim 11 recites similar limitations performed by the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
3. Dependent claims 2-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and can be performed in the human mind. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 12-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or 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.”
4. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 & 12-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
4. Therefore, claim 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-10, 11, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20170277716 A1) to Giurgiu et al. (hereinafter Giurgiu) in view of (US 20220013008 A1) to Katz et al. (hereinafter Katz).
Regarding claim 1, Giurgiu discloses A method for authenticating features reported by a vehicle, the method including: receiving, from a network, a map of an area (Giurgiu Paragraph 0004: “In an embodiment, a method for updating a remote geographic database”) (Giurgiu Paragraph 0017: “The communication device connects the vehicle to a network including at least one other vehicle and at least one server. The network may be the Internet or connected to the Internet.”) (Giurgiu Paragraph 0020: “The server map includes locations names and points of interest at particular geographic locations or location along a road segment. The server map includes road furniture items tied to geographic locations or locations along a road segment. The map at the map server may include a high definition map with the speed limits of road segments, curvature, slope, the direction of travel, length and number of lanes.”) (Giurgiu Paragraph 0021: “The connected vehicle, which may be either integrated in the vehicle or a mobile device of a traveler of the connected vehicle, includes a vehicle map, which is in a format (e.g., schema and values) similar to the server map. The server pushes updates from the server map to the vehicle map.”) with confidence weights corresponding to each feature on the map and/or a list of trusted users; (Giurgiu Paragraph 0040: “The vehicle map and the server map may list road objects with positions and object attributes. In the example of traffic signs, the object attributes may include a sign type (e.g., speed limit, no passing, no left turn, or other examples), and a sign value (e.g., 50 mph, 100 kph, another value, or empty).”) (Giurgiu Paragraph 0041: “The object attributes may also include a confidence value. The confidence value indicates a number of mobile devices (e.g., vehicles, mobile phones, or other mobile devices) that have detected the road object at or near the same geographic position.”) […] and checking features reported from the vehicle (Giurgiu Paragraph 0039: “At act S105, the mobile device 122 compares (second comparison) the road feature detected in act S101 to a local vehicle map after the delay in act S103 has occurred. After the mobile device 122 has delayed or waited for the set time period, an update, or any scheduled update or necessary update, must have occurred from the server map to the vehicle map. The position of the vehicle, or position of the road feature relative to the vehicle, has been logged when the road feature was detected in act S101. The mobile device 122 queries the vehicle map using the position of the vehicle or detected road feature.”) and matching the features to the map of the area. (Giurgiu Paragraph 0048: “At act S107, the mobile device 122 determines whether there is a geographical match for the road feature based on the comparison made in act S105. The match may be a threshold geographic distance. In other words, the mobile device 122 access the stored geographic position (e.g., average of past detections) for the road object. When the recently detected geographic position is within the threshold geographic distance, the detection is considered a match. When there is no match, the detected road object is considered a new object.”)
Giurgiu does not disclose […] upon the vehicle entering the area, checking whether the vehicle is on the list of trusted users;
However, Katz does teach […] upon the vehicle entering the area, checking whether the vehicle is on the list of trusted users; (Katz Paragraph 0032: “Embodiments of the invention include detecting total road users and their locations, at a site, based on input from a sensor mounted in vicinity of the site and detecting connected road users and their locations, based on V2X communication.”) (Katz Paragraph 0131: “In some embodiments control unit 706 may have access to a record of authorized road users 721 and may compare the identity of the road user with the record of authorized road users 721, to determine if the road user is an authorized user.”) (Katz Paragraph 0136: “The road user is identified (step 744), for example, based on input from a sensor, and the identified road user is compared to a record, e.g., list of authorized road users (745).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giurgiu to include […] upon the vehicle entering the area, checking whether the vehicle is on the list of trusted users; taught by Katz. This would have been for the benefit to provide full coverage of a site on a road network, enabling to detect and identify both connected and non-connected road users at the site, and enabling to emulate a situation where all road users are connected, even road users that are not using V2X communication. [Katz Paragraph 0019]
Regarding claim 7, Giurgiu discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising checking the features reported from the vehicle with those reported from a second vehicle. (Giurgiu Paragraph 0071: “At S207, the processor 300 compares the data for the road object in the update message to the server map in the database 143. It is possible that more than one fleet vehicle has reported the road object. At S209, the processor 300 updates the server map in response to the comparison in act S207.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
638
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Giurgiu in view of Katz teaches claim 7, accordingly, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated above.
Giurgiu does not teach The method of claim 7, wherein the second vehicle is on the list of trusted users.
However, Katz does teach The method of claim 7, wherein the second vehicle is on the list of trusted users. (Katz Paragraph 0012: “Currently, a list of authorized vehicles (e.g., emergency vehicles and public transportation) is used to allow preemption only to listed vehicles.”) (Katz Paragraph 0032: “Embodiments of the invention include detecting total road users and their locations, at a site, based on input from a sensor mounted in vicinity of the site and detecting connected road users and their locations, based on V2X communication.”) (Katz Paragraph 0136: “The road user is identified (step 744), for example, based on input from a sensor, and the identified road user is compared to a record, e.g., list of authorized road users (745).”) (Katz Paragraph 0131: “In some embodiments control unit 706 may have access to a record of authorized road users 721 and may compare the identity of the road user with the record of authorized road users 721, to determine if the road user is an authorized user.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giurgiu to include The method of claim 7, wherein the second vehicle is on the list of trusted users taught by Katz. This would have been for the benefit to provide full coverage of a site on a road network, enabling to detect and identify both connected and non-connected road users at the site, and enabling to emulate a situation where all road users are connected, even road users that are not using V2X communication. [Katz Paragraph 0019]
Regarding claim 9, Giurgiu discloses The method of claim 8, wherein the user trust score from each of the vehicle and the second vehicle are utilized in checking respectively reported features. (Giurgiu Paragraph 0071: “At S207, the processor 300 compares the data for the road object in the update message to the server map in the database 143. It is possible that more than one fleet vehicle has reported the road object. At S209, the processor 300 updates the server map in response to the comparison in act S207.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
638
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Giurgiu discloses The method of claim 9, wherein the checking of the features is performed by a network infrastructure element. (Giurgiu Paragraph 0039: “At act S105, the mobile device 122 compares (second comparison) the road feature detected in act S101 to a local vehicle map after the delay in act S103 has occurred. After the mobile device 122 has delayed or waited for the set time period, an update, or any scheduled update or necessary update, must have occurred from the server map to the vehicle map. The position of the vehicle, or position of the road feature relative to the vehicle, has been logged when the road feature was detected in act S101. The mobile device 122 queries the vehicle map using the position of the vehicle or detected road feature.”) (Note: Network infrastructure element is the mobile device.)
Regarding claim 11, Giurgiu discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising instructions which, if executed by a processor, cause the processor to: receive, from a network, a map of an area (Giurgiu Paragraph 0017: “The communication device connects the vehicle to a network including at least one other vehicle and at least one server. The network may be the Internet or connected to the Internet.”) (Giurgiu Paragraph 0020: “The server map includes locations names and points of interest at particular geographic locations or location along a road segment. The server map includes road furniture items tied to geographic locations or locations along a road segment. The map at the map server may include a high definition map with the speed limits of road segments, curvature, slope, the direction of travel, length and number of lanes.”) (Giurgiu Paragraph 0021: “The connected vehicle, which may be either integrated in the vehicle or a mobile device of a traveler of the connected vehicle, includes a vehicle map, which is in a format (e.g., schema and values) similar to the server map. The server pushes updates from the server map to the vehicle map.”) (Giurgiu Paragraph 0106: “These examples may be collectively referred to as a non-transitory computer readable medium.”) with confidence weights corresponding to each feature on the map and/or a list of trusted users; (Giurgiu Paragraph 0040: “The vehicle map and the server map may list road objects with positions and object attributes. In the example of traffic signs, the object attributes may include a sign type (e.g., speed limit, no passing, no left turn, or other examples), and a sign value (e.g., 50 mph, 100 kph, another value, or empty).”) (Giurgiu Paragraph 0041: “The object attributes may also include a confidence value. The confidence value indicates a number of mobile devices (e.g., vehicles, mobile phones, or other mobile devices) that have detected the road object at or near the same geographic position.”) […] and check features reported from the vehicle (Giurgiu Paragraph 0039: “At act S105, the mobile device 122 compares (second comparison) the road feature detected in act S101 to a local vehicle map after the delay in act S103 has occurred. After the mobile device 122 has delayed or waited for the set time period, an update, or any scheduled update or necessary update, must have occurred from the server map to the vehicle map. The position of the vehicle, or position of the road feature relative to the vehicle, has been logged when the road feature was detected in act S101. The mobile device 122 queries the vehicle map using the position of the vehicle or detected road feature.”) and check features reported from the vehicle and matching the features to the map of the area. (Giurgiu Paragraph 0048: “At act S107, the mobile device 122 determines whether there is a geographical match for the road feature based on the comparison made in act S105. The match may be a threshold geographic distance. In other words, the mobile device 122 access the stored geographic position (e.g., average of past detections) for the road object. When the recently detected geographic position is within the threshold geographic distance, the detection is considered a match. When there is no match, the detected road object is considered a new object.”)
Giurgiu does not disclose […] upon the vehicle entering the area, check whether the vehicle is on the list of trusted users;
However, Katz does teach […] upon the vehicle entering the area, check whether the vehicle is on the list of trusted users; (Katz Paragraph 0032: “Embodiments of the invention include detecting total road users and their locations, at a site, based on input from a sensor mounted in vicinity of the site and detecting connected road users and their locations, based on V2X communication.”) (Katz Paragraph 0131: “In some embodiments control unit 706 may have access to a record of authorized road users 721 and may compare the identity of the road user with the record of authorized road users 721, to determine if the road user is an authorized user.”) (Katz Paragraph 0136: “The road user is identified (step 744), for example, based on input from a sensor, and the identified road user is compared to a record, e.g., list of authorized road users (745).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giurgiu to include […] upon the vehicle entering the area, check whether the vehicle is on the list of trusted users; taught by Katz. This would have been for the benefit to provide full coverage of a site on a road network, enabling to detect and identify both connected and non-connected road users at the site, and enabling to emulate a situation where all road users are connected, even road users that are not using V2X communication. [Katz Paragraph 0019]
Regarding claim 17, Giurgiu discloses The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to check the features reported from the vehicle with those reported from a second vehicle. (Giurgiu Paragraph 0071: “At S207, the processor 300 compares the data for the road object in the update message to the server map in the database 143. It is possible that more than one fleet vehicle has reported the road object. At S209, the processor 300 updates the server map in response to the comparison in act S207.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
638
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Giurgiu in view of Katz teaches claim 17, accordingly, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated above.
Giurgiu does not teach The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein the second vehicle is on the list of trusted users.
However, Katz does teach The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein the second vehicle is on the list of trusted users. (Katz Paragraph 0012: “Currently, a list of authorized vehicles (e.g., emergency vehicles and public transportation) is used to allow preemption only to listed vehicles.”) (Katz Paragraph 0032: “Embodiments of the invention include detecting total road users and their locations, at a site, based on input from a sensor mounted in vicinity of the site and detecting connected road users and their locations, based on V2X communication.”) (Katz Paragraph 0136: “The road user is identified (step 744), for example, based on input from a sensor, and the identified road user is compared to a record, e.g., list of authorized road users (745).”) (Katz Paragraph 0131: “In some embodiments control unit 706 may have access to a record of authorized road users 721 and may compare the identity of the road user with the record of authorized road users 721, to determine if the road user is an authorized user.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giurgiu to include The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein the second vehicle is on the list of trusted users taught by Katz. This would have been for the benefit to provide full coverage of a site on a road network, enabling to detect and identify both connected and non-connected road users at the site, and enabling to emulate a situation where all road users are connected, even road users that are not using V2X communication. [Katz Paragraph 0019]
Regarding claim 19, Giurgiu discloses The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18, wherein the user trust score from each of the vehicle and the second vehicle are utilized in checking respectively reported features. (Giurgiu Paragraph 0071: “At S207, the processor 300 compares the data for the road object in the update message to the server map in the database 143. It is possible that more than one fleet vehicle has reported the road object. At S209, the processor 300 updates the server map in response to the comparison in act S207.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
638
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Giurgiu discloses The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19, wherein the checking of the features is performed by a network infrastructure element. (Giurgiu Paragraph 0039: “At act S105, the mobile device 122 compares (second comparison) the road feature detected in act S101 to a local vehicle map after the delay in act S103 has occurred. After the mobile device 122 has delayed or waited for the set time period, an update, or any scheduled update or necessary update, must have occurred from the server map to the vehicle map. The position of the vehicle, or position of the road feature relative to the vehicle, has been logged when the road feature was detected in act S101. The mobile device 122 queries the vehicle map using the position of the vehicle or detected road feature.”) (Note: Network infrastructure element is the mobile device.)
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giurgiu (US 20170277716 A1) in view of Katz (US 20220013008 A1) and further in view of (US 20130275884 A1) to Katragadda et al. (hereinafter Katragadda).
Regarding claim 2, Giurgiu discloses […] vehicle […] vehicle (Giurgiu Paragraph 0017: “vehicle”) […] and the confidence weights corresponding to the feature. (Giurgiu Paragraph 0040: “The vehicle map and the server map may list road objects with positions and object attributes. In the example of traffic signs, the object attributes may include a sign type (e.g., speed limit, no passing, no left turn, or other examples), and a sign value (e.g., 50 mph, 100 kph, another value, or empty).”) (Giurgiu Paragraph 0041: “The object attributes may also include a confidence value. The confidence value indicates a number of mobile devices (e.g., vehicles, mobile phones, or other mobile devices) that have detected the road object at or near the same geographic position.”)
Giurgiu in view of Katz does not teach The method of claim 1, further comprising creating a user trust score for the […] based on the feature reported from the […]
However, Katragadda does teach The method of claim 1, further comprising creating a user trust score for the […] based on the feature reported from the […] (Katragadda Paragraph 0135: “The assessment of trust for the spam prevention model is an assessment of the user who made the proposed edit. In one embodiment, users are given a trust rating (T)--for example, a number on a scale of 0 to 1. In one embodiment, the user has an overall trust rating as well as a trust rating for individual geographic regions and/or types of map features that they edit.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giurgiu in view of Katz to include The method of claim 1, further comprising creating a user trust score for the […] based on the feature reported from the […] taught by Katragadda. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method for updating a remote geographic database at specified times includes receiving sensor data indicative of a road furniture item, determining a geographic position associated with the road furniture item, delaying based on a first comparison of a current time to a predetermined time, performing a second comparison of the geographic position and the data indicative of the road furniture item to a local database, and sending an update to the remote geographic database in response to the first comparison and the second comparison. [Katragadda Paragraph 0004]
Regarding claim 3, Giurgiu discloses […] vehicle (Giurgiu Paragraph 0017: “vehicle”)
Giurgiu in view of Katz does not teach […] vehicle
However, Katragadda The method of claim 2, wherein the user trust score for the […] is created by performing multiple checks on features reported from the […] based on the […] not being on the list of trusted users. (Katragadda Paragraph 0135: “The signals taken into account when assessing the trust rating for a given user can include, about that user, the number of previous edits made, the number of times a previous edit has been viewed by other users, the number of previous edits that have been reviewed, reviews of previous edits, rating of reviewers that reviewed the edits ("r"), the number of edits that the user reviews in comparison to how many edits the user makes, whether or not the reviewer marked the edit as being a quality edit, number of continuous approvals ("c") and the number of continuous approvals without interruption where at least twenty percent of the approvals mark the edit as being a quality edit ("chi").”) (Katragadda Paragraph 0135: “The user's review trust rating further takes into account the number of edits reviewed and how a later reviewer rated edits that required additional review beyond the user's review.”) (Note: In order for the user to be trusted the edits to the map must be checked. The user is not trusted in the beginning.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giurgiu in view of Katz to include The method of claim 2, wherein the user trust score for the […] is created by performing multiple checks on features reported from the […] based on the […] not being on the list of trusted users taught by Katragadda. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method for updating a remote geographic database at specified times includes receiving sensor data indicative of a road furniture item, determining a geographic position associated with the road furniture item, delaying based on a first comparison of a current time to a predetermined time, performing a second comparison of the geographic position and the data indicative of the road furniture item to a local database, and sending an update to the remote geographic database in response to the first comparison and the second comparison. [Katragadda Paragraph 0004]
Regarding claim 12, Giurgiu discloses […] vehicle […] vehicle (Giurgiu Paragraph 0017: “vehicle”) […] and the confidence weights corresponding to the feature. (Giurgiu Paragraph 0040: “The vehicle map and the server map may list road objects with positions and object attributes. In the example of traffic signs, the object attributes may include a sign type (e.g., speed limit, no passing, no left turn, or other examples), and a sign value (e.g., 50 mph, 100 kph, another value, or empty).”) (Giurgiu Paragraph 0041: “The object attributes may also include a confidence value. The confidence value indicates a number of mobile devices (e.g., vehicles, mobile phones, or other mobile devices) that have detected the road object at or near the same geographic position.”)
Giurgiu in view of Katz does not teach The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to creating a user trust score for the […] based on the feature reported from the […]
However, Katragadda does teach The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to creating a user trust score for the […] based on the feature reported from the […] (Katragadda Paragraph 0135: “The assessment of trust for the spam prevention model is an assessment of the user who made the proposed edit. In one embodiment, users are given a trust rating (T)--for example, a number on a scale of 0 to 1. In one embodiment, the user has an overall trust rating as well as a trust rating for individual geographic regions and/or types of map features that they edit.”) (Katragadda Paragraph 0171: “The present invention also relates to an apparatus for performing the operations herein.”) (Katragadda Paragraph 0171: “Furthermore, the computers referred to in the specification may include a single processor or may be architectures employing multiple processor designs for increased computing capability.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giurgiu in view of Katz to include The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to creating a user trust score for the […] based on the feature reported from the […] taught by Katragadda. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method for updating a remote geographic database at specified times includes receiving sensor data indicative of a road furniture item, determining a geographic position associated with the road furniture item, delaying based on a first comparison of a current time to a predetermined time, performing a second comparison of the geographic position and the data indicative of the road furniture item to a local database, and sending an update to the remote geographic database in response to the first comparison and the second comparison. [Katragadda Paragraph 0004]
Regarding claim 13, Giurgiu discloses […] vehicle (Giurgiu Paragraph 0017: “vehicle”)
Giurgiu in view of Katz does not teach […] vehicle
However, Katragadda The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 12, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to create a user trust score for the […] by performing multiple checks on features reported from the […] based on the […] not being on the list of trusted users. (Katragadda Paragraph 0135: “The signals taken into account when assessing the trust rating for a given user can include, about that user, the number of previous edits made, the number of times a previous edit has been viewed by other users, the number of previous edits that have been reviewed, reviews of previous edits, rating of reviewers that reviewed the edits ("r"), the number of edits that the user reviews in comparison to how many edits the user makes, whether or not the reviewer marked the edit as being a quality edit, number of continuous approvals ("c") and the number of continuous approvals without interruption where at least twenty percent of the approvals mark the edit as being a quality edit ("chi").”) (Katragadda Paragraph 0135: “The user's review trust rating further takes into account the number of edits reviewed and how a later reviewer rated edits that required additional review beyond the user's review.”) (Note: In order for the user to be trusted the edits to the map must be checked. The user is not trusted in the beginning.) (Katragadda Paragraph 0171: “The present invention also relates to an apparatus for performing the operations herein.”) (Katragadda Paragraph 0171: “Furthermore, the computers referred to in the specification may include a single processor or may be architectures employing multiple processor designs for increased computing capability.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giurgiu in view of Katz to include The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 12, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to create a user trust score for the […] by performing multiple checks on features reported from the […] based on the […] not being on the list of trusted users taught by Katragadda. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method for updating a remote geographic database at specified times includes receiving sensor data indicative of a road furniture item, determining a geographic position associated with the road furniture item, delaying based on a first comparison of a current time to a predetermined time, performing a second comparison of the geographic position and the data indicative of the road furniture item to a local database, and sending an update to the remote geographic database in response to the first comparison and the second comparison. [Katragadda Paragraph 0004]
Claim(s) 4-5 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giurgiu (US 20170277716 A1) in view of Katz (US 20220013008 A1) further in view of Katragadda and further in view of (US 20190096144 A1) to Noh et al. (hereinafter Noh).
Regarding claim 4, Giurgiu in view of Katz further in view of Katragadda teaches claim 3, accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated above.
Giurgiu in view of Katz further in view of Katragadda does not teach The method of claim 3, further comprising comparing the user trust score to a threshold.
However, Noh does teach The method of claim 3, further comprising comparing the user trust score to a threshold. (Noh Paragraph 0067: “Thereafter, the controller 20 determines whether the accumulated trust point of the remote vehicle 200 on the verification message reception list exceeds a predefined threshold point, and determines that the remote vehicle 200 is trustable if the accumulated trust point exceeds the predefined threshold point.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giurgiu in view of Katz further in view of Katragadda to include The method of claim 3, further comprising comparing the user trust score to a threshold taught by Noh. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method and an apparatus for verifying a vehicle in an inter-vehicular communication environment, in which it may be determined whether information transmitted by a remote vehicle, to which inter-vehicular communication is allowed, is trustable, by verifying the remote vehicle using a verification message based on short-range wireless communication. [Noh Paragraph 0006]
Regarding claim 5, Giurgiu in view of Katz further in view of Katragadda further in view of Noh teaches claim 4, accordingly, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated above.
Giurgiu in view of Katz further in view of Katragadda does not teach The method of claim 4, further comprising adding the vehicle to the list of trusted users based on the user trust score being greater than the threshold.
However, Noh does teach The method of claim 4, further comprising adding the vehicle to the list of trusted users based on the user trust score being greater than the threshold. (Noh Paragraph 0067: “Thereafter, the controller 20 determines whether the accumulated trust point of the remote vehicle 200 on the verification message reception list exceeds a predefined threshold point, and determines that the remote vehicle 200 is trustable if the accumulated trust point exceeds the predefined threshold point.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giurgiu in view of Katz further in view of Katragadda to include The method of claim 4, further comprising adding the vehicle to the list of trusted users based on the user trust score being greater than the threshold taught by Noh. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method and an apparatus for verifying a vehicle in an inter-vehicular communication environment, in which it may be determined whether information transmitted by a remote vehicle, to which inter-vehicular communication is allowed, is trustable, by verifying the remote vehicle using a verification message based on short-range wireless communication. [Noh Paragraph 0006]
Regarding claim 14, Giurgiu in view of Katz further in view of Katragadda teaches claim 13, accordingly, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated above.
Giurgiu in view of Katz further in view of Katragadda does not teach The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to compare the user trust score to a threshold.
However, Noh does teach The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to compare the user trust score to a threshold. (Noh Paragraph 0067: “Thereafter, the controller 20 determines whether the accumulated trust point of the remote vehicle 200 on the verification message reception list exceeds a predefined threshold point, and determines that the remote vehicle 200 is trustable if the accumulated trust point exceeds the predefined threshold point.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giurgiu in view of Katz further in view of Katragadda to include The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to compare the user trust score to a threshold taught by Noh. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method and an apparatus for verifying a vehicle in an inter-vehicular communication environment, in which it may be determined whether information transmitted by a remote vehicle, to which inter-vehicular communication is allowed, is trustable, by verifying the remote vehicle using a verification message based on short-range wireless communication. [Noh Paragraph 0006]
Regarding claim 15, Giurgiu in view of Katz further in view of Katragadda further in view of Noh teaches claim 14, accordingly, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated above.
Giurgiu in view of Katz further in view of Katragadda does not teach The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to add the vehicle to the list of trusted users based on the user trust score being greater than the threshold.
However, Noh does teach The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to add the vehicle to the list of trusted users based on the user trust score being greater than the threshold. (Noh Paragraph 0067: “Thereafter, the controller 20 determines whether the accumulated trust point of the remote vehicle 200 on the verification message reception list exceeds a predefined threshold point, and determines that the remote vehicle 200 is trustable if the accumulated trust point exceeds the predefined threshold point.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giurgiu in view of Katz further in view of Katragadda to The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to add the vehicle to the list of trusted users based on the user trust score being greater than the threshold taught by Noh. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method and an apparatus for verifying a vehicle in an inter-vehicular communication environment, in which it may be determined whether information transmitted by a remote vehicle, to which inter-vehicular communication is allowed, is trustable, by verifying the remote vehicle using a verification message based on short-range wireless communication. [Noh Paragraph 0006]
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giurgiu (US 20170277716 A1) in view of Katz (US 20220013008 A1) further in view of Katragadda further in view of Noh (US 20190096144 A1) and further in view of (US 20170364831 A1) to Ghosh et al. (hereinafter Ghosh).
Regarding claim 6, Giurgiu in view of Katz further in view of Katragadda further in view of Noh teaches claim 5, accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated above.
Giurgiu does not teach The method of claim 5, further comprising flagging the vehicle as an untrusted user based on the user trust score being less than the threshold.
However, Katz does teach The method of claim 5, further comprising flagging the vehicle (Katz Paragraph 0117: “For example, authorized road users, such as emergency vehicles”) (Katz Paragraph 0138: “ a “blacklist” 772 listing malicious/malfunctioning road users”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giurgiu to include The method of claim 5, further comprising flagging the vehicle taught by Katz. This would have been for the benefit to provide full coverage of a site on a road network, enabling to detect and identify both connected and non-connected road users at the site, and enabling to emulate a situation where all road users are connected, even road users that are not using V2X communication. [Katz Paragraph 0019]
Katz further in view of Katragadda further in view of Noh does not teach […] as an untrusted user based on the user trust score being less than the threshold.
However, Ghosh does teach […] as an untrusted user based on the user trust score being less than the threshold. (Ghosh Paragraph 0006: “If the trust score of the re-trained model is less than a predefined trust threshold, than at least one of: (A) sending a notification to the computer system controller that no further modification is possible and that the model is not trusted;”) (Ghosh Paragraph 0008: “In some embodiments, a machine learning method for using machine learning to create a trusted model that improves operation of an autonomous vehicle controller”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giurgiu in view of Katz further in view of Katragadda further in view of Noh to include […] as an untrusted user based on the user trust score being less than the threshold taught by Ghosh. This would have been for the benefit to provide machine learning methods and systems for improving the reliability of a computer system operation using machine learning that provides certain guarantees of operation through a model that has been proven as trusted or reliable. [Ghosh Paragraph 0004]
Regarding claim 16, Giurgiu in view of Katz further in view of Katragadda further in view of Noh teaches claim 15, accordingly, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated above.
Giurgiu does not teach The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to flag the vehicle as an untrusted user based on the user trust score being less than the threshold.
However, Katz does teach The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to flag the vehicle (Katz Paragraph 0117: “For example, authorized road users, such as emergency vehicles”) (Katz Paragraph 0138: “ The control unit 706 is also in communication with a traffic light controller 707 and has access to several records; a “blacklist” 772 listing malicious/malfunctioning road users”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giurgiu to include The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to flag the vehicle taught by Katz. This would have been for the benefit to provide full coverage of a site on a road network, enabling to detect and identify both connected and non-connected road users at the site, and enabling to emulate a situation where all road users are connected, even road users that are not using V2X communication. [Katz Paragraph 0019]
Katz further in view of Katragadda further in view of Noh does not teach […] as an untrusted user based on the user trust score being less than the threshold.
However, Ghosh does teach […] as an untrusted user based on the user trust score being less than the threshold. (Ghosh Paragraph 0006: “If the trust score of the re-trained model is less than a predefined trust threshold, than at least one of: (A) sending a notification to the computer system controller that no further modification is possible and that the model is not trusted;”) (Ghosh Paragraph 0008: “In some embodiments, a machine learning method for using machine learning to create a trusted model that improves operation of an autonomous vehicle controller”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giurgiu in view of Katz further in view of Katragadda further in view of Noh to include […] as an untrusted user based on the user trust score being less than the threshold by Ghosh. This would have been for the benefit to provide machine learning methods and systems for improving the reliability of a computer system operation using machine learning that provides certain guarantees of operation through a model that has been proven as trusted or reliable. [Ghosh Paragraph 0004]
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