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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/14/2025. The objections to the Drawings have not been overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant is thanked for the interview conducted on 2/10/2026, during which outstanding rejections and objections were thoroughly discussed.
Applicant argues that the amended limitation of claims 1, 9, and 17 involving “a processor caused to control the vehicle to autonomously travel in accordance with the first and second vehicle route” are not disclosed by Smith, Jr. in view of Hung. Smith, Jr. teaches a navigational system that predates modern autonomous control, and thus does not teach autonomous vehicle travel.
The arguments are not persuasive, however, in view of the modification with Hung, whose invention directly relates to maintaining a map suitable for guiding autonomous driving. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the automatic information and route guidance processing of Smith, Jr. with implementation to a modern autonomous driving system as in Hung in order to aid an autonomously driving vehicle with its decision making, as in P [0016] of Hung which indicates that map accuracy is crucial to safety and reliability of autonomous driving.
Additionally, the arguments regarding determining “a confidence value based on the classification of the one or more changes” are not persuasive under broad interpretation of the claim language. In the cited paragraphs and beyond, Hung teaches a multifaceted comparison of information of the road recorded in the map with sensor data. Hung directly classifies different types of changes in the record to determine whether they belong to a moving object or static object category, and even further in P [0039]-[0040] numerous different types of comparisons can be made to “predict the likelihood that there is a change in the road and/or that the map needs to be updated.” The confidence level is “determined based on the comparison”, which broadly speaking is based on the categories of changes established by Hung.
In view of the interview discussion, the Examiner further wishes to note that the subject matter involving claims 5 and 8 coincide with the additional subject matter of paragraph [0028] in the Specification. Upon a brief review of the cited art and an updated search, reference US 20180003516 A1 discloses in P [0004] “if a driver has routinely made a deviation from a planned route, the driver may likely know of an alternative route that the GPS does not”. This related art directly addresses driver behavior that contrasts known route information. Therefore, it is important to note that further search and consideration of any new claim language will be required regarding derivation of a confidence value based on behavior that contrasts known route information.
In view of the Drawings objections, Applicant states that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate and recognize the dependent claim features in view of the subject specification. Examiner is in agreement, and points to the relevant language of 37 CFR 1.83(a) which states “conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation”. Adding such features will not constitute new matter when there is sufficient support in the original specification and claims as filed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the obtaining of information from one or more additional data sources in claims 5, 14, and 18, the display and mapping of claims 6 and 14, the aggregation of changes and classification with display of claims 7, 15, and 19, and historic map data comparison and ranking of claims 8, 16, and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Jr. (Document ID: US 5508930 A) in view of Hung et al., hereinafter Hung (Document ID: US 20240344845 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, Smith, Jr. teaches a vehicle route system and a method, comprising:
a processor (FIG. 1 “navigation computer”); and
a non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the processor, the non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium comprising one or more instructions stored thereon (FIG. 1 “memory device” which comprises a compact disc with input to the navigation computer, see Col 5 Line 4) that, when executed, cause the processor to:
obtain a first vehicle route for a vehicle, the first vehicle route comprising a predetermined route to a destination by the vehicle (see at least Col 4, Line 66: “the navigation computer 11 will calculate a desired route to the specified destination via the stored road map data comprising the road segments defined in the road map data base provided in the memory device 13.”);
compare a second vehicle route undertaken by the vehicle with the first vehicle route (see at least Col 9, Line 45: “a decision block 75 inquires if the vehicle is still on its preplanned route.” Which is a comparison of the route undertaken and the preplanned first route);
Smith, Jr. teaches in Col 5, Line 26 “provid[ing] sequential route guidance maneuver instructions to the vehicle driver for traversing the calculated route”, which are in accordance with the first and second vehicle routes, but Smith, Jr. does not explicitly teach a step to:
control the vehicle to autonomously travel in accordance with the first and second vehicle route;
Instead, Hung teaches in P [0059] a “processed map may be used to guide an autonomous vehicle to operate on the road”, and the processed map is based on comparing sensor data to previously known data of the road and route.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route guidance processing and output of Smith, Jr. with the modern autonomous driving system of hung in order to implement autonomous control in a navigation decision making process, and aid the autonomously driving vehicle with its decision making, as in P [0016] of Hung which indicates that map accuracy is crucial to safety and reliability of autonomous driving. The system of Smith, Jr. reflects long standing known methods of vehicular routing in the art to demonstrate that vehicle systems are known to adapt to changes in the environment. Hung then additionally provides mapping technology in alignment with the state of the art, and introduces the importance of environmental changes within an autonomous or semi-autonomous driving scenario. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus be motivated to modify the system of Smith, Jr. with the map updating method of Hung for autonomous driving to reduce the amount of data processing in real time and improve safety and reliability of autonomous or semi-autonomous driving.
In view of the modification, Smith, Jr. further teaches the step to
determine, based on the comparison, one or more changes between the first vehicle route and the second vehicle route, the one or more changes corresponding to a vehicle maneuver on the second vehicle route that deviates from a road segment along the first vehicle route (see at least Col 10, Line 12: “identifying for exclusion at least one maneuver of the prior or initial route”. Essentially when a vehicle maneuver or “can’t do/reroute” signal are created the system detects that a change has deviated from planned road segment from the first vehicle route);
Smith, Jr. additionally teaches in Col 1 Line 50 that the system is capable of performing effective rerouting when “the reason that the vehicle went off route was because the guidance instruction would have instructed the vehicle to turn the wrong way down a one-way street or turn onto a road segment which had a permanent or relatively permanent blockage of traffic”. The goal is thus to provide effective rerouting that does not simply reinstruct the vehicle to “implement the same undesirable maneuver”. But Smith, Jr. therefore does not explicitly teach steps to
classify whether the one or more changes fall into a first category selected from a plurality of categories, the first category comprising a physical infrastructure category; and
determine a confidence value based on the classification of the one or more changes.
Instead, Hung, whose invention pertains to methods and systems for maintaining a map for autonomous driving, teaches in FIG. 4 steps for collecting a sensor dataset including road information, and a confidence level by comparing the sensor dataset and the map that includes prior information about the road. In P [0036] the changes are categorized: “different elements of the map corresponding to different road objects may be stored as different binary objects with corresponding data units.” P [0037] then differentiates between moving objects such as vehicles or pedestrians and infrastructure objects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route guidance and awareness of route or environment changes of Smith, Jr. with the sensor collection and map updating method of Hung in order to provide "a map up-to-date with sufficient accuracy" as in P [0016] of Hung.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, modified Smith, Jr. teaches the vehicle route system of claim 1 and the method of claim 9, and in view of the modification Smith, Jr. further teaches
the physical infrastructure category comprises a bridge, a ramp, a link, a lane, or any combination thereof (see at least Col 6, Line 3: “the road segment onto which he is being directed is under construction or impassable” wherein a road link or link is thus an inaccessible type of physical infrastructure).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, modified Smith, Jr. teaches the vehicle route system of claim 1 and the method of claim 9, and Smith, Jr. teaches in Col 3, Line 1 that the rerouting process is for excluding a maneuver between road segments, indicating that the reason a particular route cannot be followed can be for a number of a reasons. But Smith, Jr. does not explicitly teach that the processor is further configured to
classify whether the one or more changes fall into a second category selected from a plurality of categories, the second category comprising a non-physical infrastructure category.
Instead, Hung teaches in P [0048] that there are multiple categories for the detected changes on the route including “road surface conditions”, which have an impact on “characteristics of the section of the road” and “safety of autonomous driving”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the identification of road areas or segments that cannot be traversed or where a maneuver cannot be performed of Smith, Jr. with the categorization and individual confidence levels of Hung in order to provide "a map up-to-date with sufficient accuracy" as in P [0016] of Hung, as well as bolster the safety of driving using map guidance.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, modified Smith, Jr. teaches the vehicle route system of claim 3 and the method of claim 11, but Smith, Jr. does not explicitly teach
the non-physical infrastructure category comprises a speed limit change, a perceived change in road safety, road conditions, or any combination thereof.
Instead, Hung teaches in P [0048] that there are multiple categories for the detected changes on the route including “road surface conditions”, which have an impact on “characteristics of the section of the road” and “safety of autonomous driving”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the identification of road areas or segments that cannot be traversed or where a maneuver cannot be performed of Smith, Jr. with the categorization and individual confidence levels of Hung in order to provide "a map up-to-date with sufficient accuracy" as in P [0016] of Hung, as well as bolster the safety of driving using map guidance.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, modified Smith, Jr. teaches the vehicle route system of claim 1 and the method of claim 9, and Smith, Jr. further teaches the processor is further configured to:
display, on a map, including the first vehicle route and the second vehicle route (see at least Col 6, Line 22: “In those systems when the vehicle goes off route, preferably a visual display of a map network is provided along with indications of the desired route and the vehicle's current travel path”); and
update the map to display the one or more changes (see at least block 79 in FIG. 5 which presents new instruction on the display for the prior detected change).
Claim(s) 5, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Jr. in view of Hung, and further in view of van der Laan et al., hereinafter van der Laan (Document ID: US 20150088814 A1).
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 18, modified Smith, Jr. teaches the vehicle route system of claim 1, the method of claim 9, and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, and Hung teaches a server 200 with a “a transmitter 215 and a receiver 220 configured to send and receive information, respectively”, wherein information may be received from sources “external to the server 200”. Within the memory 205 is the map maintenance module 300. But Smith, Jr. and Hung do not explicitly teach that the processor is further configured to:
obtain additional information from one or more additional data sources to supplement its classification of the one or more changes, the additional information from the one or more additional data sources comprising web scraping data related to the physical infrastructure category; and
update, based on the additional information, the confidence value.
Instead, van der Laan, whose invention pertains to maintaining an up to date record of points of interest, teaches in at least P [0019] “receiving reports from various sources, such as mobile devices, data obtained from web crawlers, etc., containing information indicating whether the current attributes for a POI are correct or not… These reports are used to adjust, e.g. increase or decrease, a confidence value associated with a POI in the database.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mapping abilities and up to date map maintenance based on changes of Smith, Jr. and Hung with the POI database and confidence value associated with POIs of van der Laan in order to keep data accurate and up to date as in P [0111] of van der Laan, which is useful for providing an accurate planned route of travel as in P [0089] of van der Laan.
Claim(s) 7-8, 15-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Jr. in view of Hung, and further in view of Mistele et al., hereinafter Mistele (Document ID: US 20220065639 A1).
Regarding claims 7, 15, and 19, modified Smith, Jr. teaches the vehicle route system of claim 1, the method of claim 9, and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, and Smith, Jr. further teaches a map memory device 13 which stores a map database. Hung additionally teaches the use of a map checker 310 for monitoring whether a map needs to be updated based on historic map data. But Smith, Jr. and Hung do not explicitly teach that the processor is further configured to:
aggregate the one or more changes for a plurality of vehicles for a plurality of destinations over a predetermined time period;
classify whether the aggregated one or more changes fall into the first category or a second category selected from the plurality of categories; and
display the location of the aggregated one or more changes on a map relative to the first vehicle route.
Instead, Mistele, whose invention pertains to ranking road segments, teaches in P [0015] that a danger rating system is used “for particular drivers and vehicles being driven by the drivers”. Note that each drive in the vehicles will have their own destinations, and in P [0020] the data collected by “vehicles driving along the road segments” is aggregate data.
In P [0021]-[0023] then, patterns for driving and the actual factors for assessing the road are collected and classified as indicators of “whether the road segments are dangerous or safe.” In P [0022] categories for changes involve “a tight turn factor, a speed limit factor (e.g., a high speed factor), a dangerous merge factor, a road volume factor (e.g., an volume of vehicles on a road segment over a particular timespan), a road class factor (e.g., one-way street, two-way street, a highway, a ramp, a city road, etc.), a road segment length factor, a road segment geometry factor (e.g., how curvy or straight is a road segment), an animal crossing location factor, a vehicle type factor (e.g., vehicle types of vehicles typically traveling a road segment), a historic construction improvement factor for a road segment (e.g., a last time a road segment was repaved to fix potholes or install safety features), and/or a variety of other factors relating to road segments.”
Then, in P [0015] again, “danger ratings may be provided to the drivers, such as display through a user interface of a devices of a driver so that the driver can understand what roads are dangerous or safe and reasons (the factors) why the road segments are deemed to be dangerous or safe”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route updating and map updating methods of Smith, Jr. and Hung with the road segment rating/ranking and safety system for display of Mistele in order to take safer routes in order to reduce the likelihood of accidents as in P [0015] of Mistele. The system of Smith, Jr. aims to mitigate routing vehicles on a path that cannot be accessed for any reason, and Hung aims to specifically increase the safety of autonomous driving by keeping maps up to date. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be motivated to modify the routing and mapping of Smith, Jr. and Hung with the road segment ranking of Mistele to further improve rider experience and safety
Regarding claims 8, 16, and 20, modified Smith, Jr. teaches the vehicle route system of claim 1, the method of claim 9, and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, and Smith, Jr. further teaches a map memory device 13 which stores a map database. Hung additionally teaches the use of a map checker 310 for monitoring whether a map needs to be updated based on historic map data. But Smith, Jr. and Hung do not explicitly teach that the processor is further configured to:
determine the one or more changes by comparing road network links to historic map data, the one or more changes including changes in vehicle driving patterns; and
assign one or more rankings to a respective region on a map based on the one or more changes.
Instead, Mistele teaches in at least P [0021] collecting “autonomous vehicle data” including “braking patterns” or “steering patterns” that help provide context for vehicle driving patterns based on road features or map data. FIG. 1 then helps provide a flow for the “road segment ranking” procedure that ranks a respective region on a map based on “how dangerous or safe… each road segment [is]” (P [0017]). P [0021] draws a direct correlation between the vehicle driving patterns and potential accidents that are caused on those road segments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route updating and map updating methods of Smith, Jr. and Hung with the road segment rating/ranking of Mistele in order to take safer routes in order to reduce the likelihood of accidents as in P [0015] of Mistele. The system of Smith, Jr. aims to mitigate routing vehicles on a path that cannot be accessed for any reason, and Hung aims to specifically increase the safety of autonomous driving by keeping maps up to date. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be motivated to modify the routing and mapping of Smith, Jr. and Hung with the road segment ranking of Mistele to further improve rider experience and safety.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Additional art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: US 20180003516 A1
Invention pertains to obtaining route deviation data for generating optimal driving routes.
Document ID: US 11775570 B2
Invention pertains to providing and maintaining high definition maps for autonomous vehicles.
Document ID: US 9140567 B2
Invention pertains to determining an actual travel route based on historical vehicle status data.
Document ID: US 9605970 B1
Invention pertains to selecting the highest scored route based on a destination, a quality of a route, and sensor data.
Document ID: US 20200393255 A1
Invention pertains to vehicle re-routing context determination for a subject vehicle.
Document ID: DE102017002685A1
Invention pertains to detecting changes involving an undesirable, especially structural, damage to the traffic route.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/D.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656