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 .
Application Status
This Final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 12 November 2025. Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are examined and pending. Claims 1, 8-11, 17-18, and 20 are currently amended and claims 4-5 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the rejection as previously presented has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argues the following:
Step 2A: The claims are not directed to an abstract idea
In view of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter, "Revised Guidance") and MPEP § 2106.05(a), Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 1 is not directed to a mere abstract idea of a mental process, which can be performed in the human mind, as alleged in the Office Action.
Amended independent claim 1 recites the features of "transmitting a control signal so that the mission vehicle visits the recommended destination to perform the mission", and response to a sampling target value of the urban data on the road exceeding a reference value, collecting the urban data measured using a fixed sensor on a road, and in response to the sampling target value of the urban data on the road not exceeding the reference value, collecting the urban data measured using a mobile sensor installed in a vehicle traveling on the road"
The above features of amended independent claim 1 do not fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, amended independent claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea and are patent eligible under Prong One of Step 2A of the Revised Guidance.
Applicant also respectfully submits that the claimed method solves the technical problems in the conventional industry practice, which are described throughout the specification, e.g., in paras. [0004] and [0005] of the originally-filed specification:[0004] Conventionally, an effort to reduce the fine dust by installing sensors at designated places of a city to measure, for example, fine dust concentrations, and deploying a sprinkler truck to a region having a high fine dust pollution level based on the measured fine dust concentrations has been made.
[0005] However, even in the same region in an administrative district, fine dust concentrations on roads vary sensitively depending on whether or not each road is under construction, the number and a type of vehicles traveling on each road, and the like, and it is thus difficult to obtain accurate data for urban environment control by a conventional method.
[0009] Further, conventionally, a service that provides the shortest route to the mission destination in consideration of traffic situations when a user or an administrator arbitrarily inputs the mission destination has been provided, but a method for recommending the mission destination itself using accurate atmospheric environment measurement data has not been disclosed.
[0010] Accordingly, it is necessary to secure accurate atmospheric environment measurement data at a road level subdivided more than an administrative district level, and it is also necessary to secure state-related data of the city, such as the information on the road surface conditions of the roads, the illegal advertisements in the city, the demonstrations/events in the city, and the like. In addition, technology that provides the mission destination appropriate for a situation in consideration of the atmospheric environment measurement data of the city and the state-related data of the city secured as described above, and other environmental constraints has been demanded.
To solve the above technical problems, according to amended independent claim 1, in response to a sampling target value of the urban data on the road exceeding a reference value, a computing apparatus collects the urban data measured using a fixed sensor on a road, and in response to the sampling target value of the urban data on the road not exceeding the reference value, the computing apparatus collects the urban data measured using a mobile sensor installed in a vehicle traveling on the road.
Based on the above features, the claimed subject matter achieves technical benefits over the prior approaches. That is, according to the claimed subject matter, it is possible to obtain accurate data for urban environment using a fixed sensor on a road or a mobile sensor installed in a vehicle traveling on the road, in the same region.
Further, to solve the above technical problems, according to amended independent claim 1, a computing apparatus transmits a control signal so that the mission vehicle visits the recommended destination to perform the mission.
Based on the above features, the claimed subject matter achieves technical benefits over the prior approaches. That is, according to the claimed subject matter, it is possible to recommend a mission destination that a mission vehicle should visit using urban data collected in space- time units and other environmental constraints, as described in paragraph [0012] of the specification.
Because the claimed subject matter of amended independent claim 1 is directed to an improvement over the prior art methods, and amended independent claim 1, which incorporate "transmitting a control signal so that the mission vehicle visits the recommended destination to perform the mission", and "in response to a samplings target value of the urban data on the road exceeding a reference value, collecting the urban data measured using a fixed sensor on a road, and in response to the sampling target value of the urban data on the road not exceeding the reference value, collecting the urban data measured using a mobile sensor installed in a vehicle traveling on the road," is integrated into a practical application, amended independent claim 1 is patent eligible under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Revised Guidance.
The examiner has considered the arguments for step 2A prong 1 and respectfully disagree. The independent claims recite generating a recommended destination for a mission vehicle based on the urban data and constraints set for performing a mission. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
These limitation(s), as drafted are a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claim(s) limitations encompass a person looking at data such as urban data of roads and different types of mission and destinations could generate/determine a recommended destination for a mission vehicle based on the urban data and constraints set for performing a mission. The mere nominal recitation of the “one or more processors” to perform the abstract idea does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
The independent claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitations of collecting urban data measured on a road partitioned into a plurality of unit areas; wherein the collecting urban data includes: in response to a sampling target value of the urban data on the road exceeding a reference value, collecting the urban data measured using a fixed sensor on a road, and in response to the sampling target value of the urban data on the road not exceeding the reference value, collecting the urban data measured using a mobile sensor installed in a vehicle traveling on the road; transmitting a control signal so that the mission vehicle visits the recommended destination to perform the mission; fixed and mobile sensor, one or more processors; a memory loading a computer program executed by the processor; and a storage storing the computer program. The collecting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data (receiving/collecting various data (urban data, missions, etc.)) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting step is merely transmitting a control signal, the control based on the transmitted step is not positively recited. Therefore, the transmitting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The sensors are recited at a high level of generality (claimed generically) and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim(s) is/are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The recited additional limitation(s) of , one or more processors; a memory loading a computer program executed by the processor; and a storage storing the computer program are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
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 collecting, transmitting, and devices/sensors (e.g. one or more processors) elements/steps were considered to be 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 specification does not provide any indication that these elements/steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Thus, the claims as presented are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As such, the rejection under USC 101 is maintained herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 8-10, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 5 line 2, the recited limitation “a mobile sensor installed in a mobility” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner how the sensor is installed in a mobility? Mobility is a movement or motion?
In claims 8, 9, and 20 line 4, the recited limitation “the number of mission vehicles” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 10 line 4, the recited limitation “the mission destinations” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 17, the recited limitation “the mission vehicle located in another region” and “the number of mission vehicles” are indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite generating a recommended destination for a mission vehicle based on the urban data and constraints set for performing a mission. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
These limitation(s), as drafted are a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claim(s) limitations encompass a person looking at data such as urban data of roads and different types of mission and destinations could generate/determine a recommended destination for a mission vehicle based on the urban data and constraints set for performing a mission. The mere nominal recitation of the “one or more processors” to perform the abstract idea does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitations of collecting urban data measured on a road partitioned into a plurality of unit areas; wherein the collecting urban data includes: in response to a sampling target value of the urban data on the road exceeding a reference value, collecting the urban data measured using a fixed sensor on a road, and in response to the sampling target value of the urban data on the road not exceeding the reference value, collecting the urban data measured using a mobile sensor installed in a vehicle traveling on the road; transmitting a control signal so that the mission vehicle visits the recommended destination to perform the mission; fixed and mobile sensor, one or more processors; a memory loading a computer program executed by the processor; and a storage storing the computer program.
The collecting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data (receiving/collecting various data (urban data, missions, etc.)) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting step is merely transmitting a control signal, the control based on the transmitted step is not positively recited. Therefore, the transmitting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The sensors are recited at a high level of generality (claimed generically) and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim(s) is/are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The recited additional limitation(s) of , one or more processors; a memory loading a computer program executed by the processor; and a storage storing the computer program are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 collecting, transmitting, and devices/sensors (e.g. one or more processors) elements/steps were considered to be 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 specification does not provide any indication that these elements/steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-16 and 18-20 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7-10, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park Min Ho (KR1020210097433A) in view of Hu et al (US 20210377708 A1).
NOTE: see NPL machine translation of KR1020210097433A for mapping of the claims.
With respect to claim 1, Park Min HO discloses a method for recommending a mission destination using urban data (see at least [abstract]), the method being performed by a computing apparatus, comprising: collecting urban data measured on a road partitioned into a plurality of unit areas (see at least [0006], [0014], [0027-0028], [0040], and [0046-0050]); generating a recommended destination for a mission vehicle based on the urban data and constraints set for performing a mission (see at least [0020-0021], [0046-0047], and [0058-0059]), transmitting a control signal so that the mission vehicle visits the recommended destination to perform the mission (see at least [0046], and [0058], “The determination unit 260 transmits the determined cleaning movement path to the navigation device of the road sweeper through the communication network 140.”); wherein the recommended destination refers to one of the unit areas (see at least [0020-0021], [0046-0047], and [0058-0059]), and the mission is any one of a plurality of predetermined types of missions performed by the mission vehicle on a mission area on the road including the recommended destination and one or more adjacent areas of the recommended destination (see at least [0005-0006], [0014], [0020-0021], [0046-0047], [0055], and [0058-0059]).
Park Min Ho do not specifically disclose wherein the collecting urban data includes: in response to a sampling target value of the urban data on the road exceeding a reference value, collecting the urban data measured using a fixed sensor on a road (see at least [0019], [0023], [0030], [0047], and [0092-0093]), and in response to the sampling target value of the urban data on the road not exceeding the reference value, collecting the urban data measured using a mobile sensor installed in a vehicle traveling on the road (see at least [0020], [0031-0032], [0036], [0038-0039], [0043-0045], [0047], [0069], [0071-0072], [0082-0083], [0085], and [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Park Min Ho, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Hu wherein the collecting urban data includes: in response to a sampling target value of the urban data on the road exceeding a reference value, collecting the urban data measured using a fixed sensor on a road, and in response to the sampling target value of the urban data on the road not exceeding the reference value, collecting the urban data measured using a mobile sensor installed in a vehicle traveling on the road. This would be done to improve collection and processing of environmental data is desired (see Hu para 0002).
With respect to claim 2, Park Min Ho discloses wherein the collecting of the urban data includes collecting the urban data in space-time units divided into the plurality of unit areas and a plurality of time zones (see at least [0006], [0014], [0027-0028], [0030-0031], [0034-0036], [0040], and [0046-0054]).
With respect to claim 3, Park Min Ho discloses wherein the collecting of the urban data includes performing processing on a missing value when collecting the urban data corresponding to each of the plurality of unit areas and the plurality of time zones areas (see at least [0020-0021], [0046-0047], [0046-0054], and [0058-0059]).
With respect to claim 6, Park Min Ho discloses wherein the collecting of the urban data includes: transmitting a provision request for the urban data to a mobile terminal or an Internet of Things (IoT) terminal located on the road or around the road (see at least [0025-0026], [0028], [0034-0035], and [0051-0052]); and obtaining the urban data measured by a sensor mounted in the mobile terminal or the IoT terminal (see at least [0025-0026], [0028], [0034-0035], and [0051-0052]).
With respect to claim 18, it is an apparatus claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 1. As such, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
Claims 7-10, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park Min Ho (KR1020210097433A) in view of Hu et al (US 20210377708 A1) in view of Dalera (US 20210191764 A1).
NOTE: see NPL machine translation of KR1020210097433A for mapping of the claims.
With respect to claim 7, Park Min Ho discloses wherein the constraints include at least one of a mission performance time, whether or not start/end times are punctual, an urgency level, and whether or not departure/destination places match (see at least [0005-0006], [0014], [0020-0021], [0046-0047], [0055], and [0058-0059]).
However, Park Min Ho as modified by Hu do not specifically disclose generating of the recommended destination for the mission vehicle includes outputting the recommended destination by applying the urban data and the constraints to an artificial intelligence algorithm.
Dalera teaches generating of the recommended destination for the mission vehicle includes outputting the recommended destination by applying the urban data and the constraints to an artificial intelligence algorithm (see at least [0038], [0044-0045], and [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Park Min Ho as modified by Hu, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Dalera of teaches generating of the recommended destination for the mission vehicle includes outputting the recommended destination by applying the urban data and the constraints to an artificial intelligence algorithm. This would be done to improve task execution when the tasks are related to yard work or tasks that require multiple travels (i.e., lawn mower) (see Dalera para 0005).
With respect to claim 8, Park Min Ho discloses wherein the outputting of the recommended destination includes: outputting a plurality of recommended destinations corresponding to a single mission vehicle together with visit order information when a number of mission vehicles is one (see at least [0005-0006], [0014], [0020-0021], [0046-0047], [0055], and [0058-0059]); and outputting a control signal so that the single mission vehicle continuously visits the plurality of recommended destinations based on the visit order information (see at least [0005-0006], [0014], [0020-0021], [0046-0047], [0055], and [0058-0059]).
With respect to claim 9, Park Min Ho discloses wherein the outputting of the recommended destination includes: outputting a plurality of recommended destinations corresponding to a single mission vehicle together with visit time information when a number of mission vehicles is one (see at least [0005-0006], [0014], [0020-0021], [0046-0047], [0055], and [0058-0059]).
However, Park Min Ho as modified by Hu do not specifically disclose outputting a control signal so that the single mission vehicle visits each of the recommended destinations n times (where n is a natural number) based on the visit time information.
Dalera teaches outputting a control signal so that the single mission vehicle visits each of the recommended destinations n times (where n is a natural number) based on the visit time information (see at least [0044] and [0057-0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Park Min Ho as modified by Hu, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Dalera of outputting a control signal so that the single mission vehicle visits each of the recommended destinations n times (where n is a natural number) based on the visit time information. This would be done to improve task execution when the tasks are related to yard work or tasks that require multiple travels (i.e., lawn mower) (see Dalera para 0005).
With respect to claim 10, Park Min Ho discloses wherein the outputting of the plurality of recommended destinations corresponding to the single mission vehicle together with the visit time information includes: generating destination groups by classifying mission destinations by regional groups (see at least [0005-0006], [0014], [0020-0021], [0046-0047], [0055], [0058-0059], and [Fig. 7]); determining recommended destinations corresponding to the single mission vehicle for each destination group (see at least [0005-0006], [0014], [0020-0021], [0046-0047], [0055], [0058-0059], and [Fig. 7]).
However, Park Min Ho as modified by Hu do not specifically disclose outputting the recommended destinations determined for each destination group together with the visit time information.
Dalera teaches outputting the recommended destinations determined for each destination group together with the visit time information (see at least [0044] and [0057-0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Park Min Ho as modified by Hu, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Dalera of outputting the recommended destinations determined for each destination group together with the visit time information. This would be done to improve task execution when the tasks are related to yard work or tasks that require multiple travels (i.e., lawn mower) (see Dalera para 0005).
With respect to claim 16, Park Min Ho discloses wherein the outputting of the recommended destination includes: configuring a plurality of features included in the urban data in a plurality of layers (see at least [0005-0006], [0014], [0020-0021], [0046-0047], [0055], [0058-0059], and [Fig. 7]); perform scaling on two or more layers selected from the plurality of layers (see at least [0005-0006], [0014], [0020-0021], [0046-0047], [0055], [0058-0059], and [Fig. 7]); outputting information on the recommended destination from a result of performing the artificial intelligence algorithm using the two or more layers on which the scaling is performed as inputs (see at least [0005-0006], [0014], [0020-0021], [0046-0047], [0055], [0058-0059], and [Fig. 7]); and generating a visit patrol route for the mission vehicle to move to the recommended destination using the information on the recommended destination (see at least [0005-0006], [0014], [0020-0021], [0046-0047], [0055], [0058-0059], and [Fig. 7]).
With respect to claim 17, Park Min Ho discloses obtaining scoring data by calculating a score for an environmental situation for each road using the plurality of layers (see at least [0005-0006], [0014], [0020-0021], [0046-0047], [0055], [0058-0059], and [Fig. 7]); and outputting a control signal so that a mission vehicle located in another region moves to the mission destination when it is decided that the number of mission vehicles located at the mission destination is less than a reference value based on the scoring data (see at least [0005-0006], [0014], [0020-0021], [0046-0047], [0055], [0058-0059], and [Fig. 7]).
With respect to claims 19 and 20, they are apparatus claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 7 and 8. As such, claims 19 and 20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 7 and 8 and is incorporated herein.
Claims 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park Min Ho (KR1020210097433A) in view of Hu et al (US 20210377708 A1) in view of Dalera (US 20210191764 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20240132098 A1).
NOTE: see NPL machine translation of KR1020210097433A for mapping of the claims.
With respect to claim 11, Park Min Ho as modified by Hu and Dalera do not specifically disclose wherein the outputting of the recommended destination includes: assigning corresponding recommended destinations to each of a plurality of mission vehicles when a number of mission vehicles is plural; and extracting visit patrol routes for each of the plurality of mission vehicles based on the assigned recommended destinations, and the recommended destinations are assigned so as not to overlap each other between the plurality of mission vehicles.
Zhang teaches wherein the outputting of the recommended destination includes: assigning corresponding recommended destinations to each of a plurality of mission vehicles when a number of mission vehicles is plural (see at least [0063], [0067], [0074], [0119-0121], [0125], [0155], [0167], and [0173]); and extracting visit patrol routes for each of the plurality of mission vehicles based on the assigned recommended destinations (see at least [0063], [0067], [0074], [0119-0121], [0125], [0155], [0167], and [0173]), and the recommended destinations are assigned so as not to overlap each other between the plurality of mission vehicles (see at least [0063], [0067], [0074], [0119-0121], [0125], [0155], [0167], and [0173]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Park Min Ho as modified by Hu and Dalera, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Zhang wherein the outputting of the recommended destination includes: assigning corresponding recommended destinations to each of a plurality of mission vehicles when a number of mission vehicles is plural; and extracting visit patrol routes for each of the plurality of mission vehicles based on the assigned recommended destinations, and the recommended destinations are assigned so as not to overlap each other between the plurality of mission vehicles. This would be done to improve task execution when plurality of tasks are required (see Zhang para 0003-0004).
With respect to claim 12, Park Min Ho discloses wherein the assigning of the corresponding recommended destinations to each of the plurality of mission vehicles includes assigning the recommended destinations using management district information of each of the plurality of mission vehicles (see at least [0027], [0030], and [0048]).
With respect to claim 13, Park Min Ho as modified by Hu and Dalera do not specifically disclose wherein the assigning of the corresponding recommended destinations to each of the plurality of mission vehicles includes assigning the recommended destinations using travel time information of each of the plurality of mission vehicles.
Zhang teaches wherein the assigning of the corresponding recommended destinations to each of the plurality of mission vehicles includes assigning the recommended destinations using travel time information of each of the plurality of mission vehicles (see at least [0019], [0063], [0067], [0074], [0119-0121], [0125], [0155], [0167], and [0173]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Park Min Ho as modified by Hu and Dalera, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Zhang wherein the assigning of the corresponding recommended destinations to each of the plurality of mission vehicles includes assigning the recommended destinations using travel time information of each of the plurality of mission vehicles. This would be done to improve task execution when plurality of tasks are required (see Zhang para 0003-0004).
With respect to claim 15, Park Min Ho disclose wherein the extracting of the visit patrol routes for each of the plurality of mission vehicles based on the assigned recommended destinations includes extracting the visit patrol routes using at least one of a traffic congestion degree (see at least [0005-0009], [0014-0017], [0027-0028], [0034-0038], [0040], and [0046-0050]), whether or not an event has occurred (see at least [0005-0009], [0014-0017], [0027-0028], [0034-0038], [0040], and [0046-0050]), whether or not there is a high concentration of fine dust (see at least [0005-0009], [0014-0017], [0027-0028], [0034-0038], [0040-0041], and [0046-0050]), and whether or not data collection missions are performed simultaneously (see at least [0005-0009], [0014-0017], [0027-0028], [0034-0038],[0040-0041], and [0046-0050]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park Min Ho (KR1020210097433A) in view of Hu et al (US 20210377708 A1) in view of Dalera (US 20210191764 A1)in view of Zhang (US 20240132098 A1) in view of Rodoni (US 20210114432 A1).
NOTE: see NPL machine translation of KR1020210097433A for mapping of the claims.
With respect to claim 14, Park Min Ho as modified by Hu, Dalera, and Zhang do not specifically disclose outputting a control signal so that a following vehicle mounted with a mobile sensor visits the recommended destination and measures the urban data while each mission vehicle visits the assigned recommended destination and performs the mission; and determining whether or not each mission vehicle performs the mission at the assigned recommended destination based on whether or not a measured value of the urban data measured by the mobile sensor of the following vehicle is within a target range.
Rodoni teaches outputting a control signal so that a following vehicle mounted with a mobile sensor visits the recommended destination and measures the urban data while each mission vehicle visits the assigned recommended destination and performs the mission (see at least [0048] and [0063]); and determining whether or not each mission vehicle performs the mission at the assigned recommended destination based on whether or not a measured value of the urban data measured by the mobile sensor of the following vehicle is within a target range (see at least [0048] and [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Park Min Ho as modified by Hu, Dalera, and Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of outputting a control signal so that a following vehicle mounted with a mobile sensor visits the recommended destination and measures the urban data while each mission vehicle visits the assigned recommended destination and performs the mission; and determining whether or not each mission vehicle performs the mission at the assigned recommended destination based on whether or not a measured value of the urban data measured by the mobile sensor of the following vehicle is within a target range. This would be done to eliminate manual audits on sites and reduce inaccuracy of audits (see Rodoni para 0005).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in the office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667