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
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 16-17 and 20-29 are pending and have been examined in this application. Claims 4-5, 9-15 and 18-19 are cancelled.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
Two information disclosure statements (IDS) have been filed on 16 May 2024 and 08 May 2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 16 and 17 should be amended either to recite “updating the map according to the recommended speed limits of each of the road sections” since the previous corresponding limitation is “a recommended speed limit of each of road sections”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 16 and 17 should be amended to recite “wherein the traveling information comprises the road sections of the target road where the target vehicles travel and traveling speeds of the target vehicles on the road sections . Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 21 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3, 21 and 26 should be amended to recite “selecting and determining a vehicle with [[the]] a traveling trajectory consistent with a road shape ...” since such specific limitation has not been previously recited unless the limitation is fully changed to “selecting and determining [[a]] the vehicle when the traveling trajectory is consistent with a road shape ...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8, 24 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 8, 24 and 29 should be amended to recite “comparing the traveling speeds . Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 6-8, 16-17 and 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 16 is directed to a device and claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, claims 1, 16 and 17 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 16 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A method for updating a map, comprising:
acquiring target vehicles traveling on a target road and traveling information of the target vehicles;
determining a recommended speed limit of each of road sections on the target road according to the traveling information; and
updating the map according to the recommended speed limit,
wherein the traveling information comprises road sections of the target road where the target vehicles travel and traveling speeds of the target vehicles on a road section,
wherein determining the recommended speed limit of each of the road sections on the target road according to the traveling information comprises:
acquiring, for each of the road sections, a traveling speed of each of the target vehicles on the road section according to the traveling information; and
determining the recommended speed limit of the road section according to the traveling speed of each of the target vehicles on the road section
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, determining a recommended speed limit ..., updating the map ..., acquiring ... a travel speed ... according to the traveling information ..., and determining the recommended speed limit ... in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, acquired, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, replacement, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for updating a map, comprising:
acquiring target vehicles traveling on a target road and traveling information of the target vehicles;
determining a recommended speed limit of each of road sections on the target road according to the traveling information; and
updating the map according to the recommended speed limit,
wherein the traveling information comprises road sections of the target road where the target vehicles travel and traveling speeds of the target vehicles on a road section,
wherein determining the recommended speed limit of each of the road sections on the target road according to the traveling information comprises:
acquiring, for each of the road sections, a traveling speed of each of the target vehicles on the road section according to the traveling information; and
determining the recommended speed limit of the road section according to the traveling speed of each of the target vehicles on the road section
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of acquiring target vehicles ... and traveling information ..., the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the acquiring step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information/data for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1, 16 and 17 further recite the “A method for ..., comprising: ...” (claim 1), “A device for ..., comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a program code executable by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to: ...” (claim 16) and “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, a method for ... is implemented, the method comprising: ...” (claim 17) which merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of acquiring target vehicles and traveling information are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-8 and 20-29 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, 6-8 and 20-29 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 6-8, 16-17 and 20-29 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 16-17, 20-23 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van (US20160210854A1) in view of Kafer (US20250087086A1).
Regarding claim 1, Van discloses a method for updating a database (see at least abstract), comprising: acquiring target vehicles traveling on a target road and traveling information of the target vehicles (see at least [0031], [0032], [0052], [0093], [0094] and [0097]); determining a recommended speed limit of each of road sections on the target road according to the traveling information (see at least [0052], [0088], [0102], [0103] and [0114]); and updating the database according to the recommended speed limit (see at least [0054] and [0107]-[0112]), wherein the traveling information comprises road sections of the target road where the target vehicles travel and traveling speeds of the target vehicles on a road section (see at least [0031], [0032], [0052], [0093], [0094] and [0097]), wherein determining the recommended speed limit of each of the road sections on the target road according to the traveling information comprises: acquiring, for each of the road sections, a traveling speed of each of the target vehicles on the road section according to the traveling information (see at least [0031], [0032], [0052], [0093], [0094] and [0097]); and determining the recommended speed limit of the road section according to the traveling speed of each of the target vehicles on the road section (see at least [0052], [0088], [0102]-[0112] and [0114]).
Van does not explicitly disclose updating the map according to the recommended speed limit. However, Kafer teaches updating the map according to the recommended speed limit (see at least [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Van to incorporate the teachings of Kafer which teaches updating the map according to the recommended speed limit since they are both directed to speed limit correction(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Kafer would increase utility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 2, Van as modified by Kafer discloses wherein acquiring the target vehicles traveling on the target road comprises: acquiring candidate vehicles traveling on the target road (see at least Van [0031], [0093], [0094] and [0097]); acquiring traveling directions of the candidate vehicles (see at least Van [0031], [0032], [0062], [0063] and [0089]); and taking candidate vehicles with a same traveling direction as the target vehicles (see at least Van [0029], [0031], [0032], [0062], [0063], [0089], [0093], [0094] and [0097]).
Regarding claim 3, Van as modified by Kafer discloses wherein acquiring the candidate vehicles traveling on the target road comprises: acquiring a traveling trajectory of a vehicle traveling on a road network (see at least Van [0052], [0088], [0089], [0093], [0096] and [0100]); and matching the traveling trajectory with the target road, and selecting and determining a vehicle with the traveling trajectory consistent with a road shape of the target road as a candidate vehicle (see at least Van Figure 4a, Figure 4b, Van [0052], [0088], [0089], [0093], [0096] and [0100]).
Regarding claim 6, Van as modified by Kafer discloses wherein determining the recommended speed limit of the road section according to the traveling speed of each of the target vehicles on the road section comprises: counting an occurrence frequency of each traveling speed (see at least Van Figure 8b, [0104] and [0105]); and selecting a traveling speed with a highest occurrence frequency as the recommended speed limit of the road section (see at least Van Figure 8b, [0052] and [0105]).
Regarding claim 7, Van as modified by Kafer discloses wherein determining the recommended speed limit of the road section according to the traveling speed of each of the target vehicles on the road section comprises: acquiring a reference traveling speed according to the traveling speed of each of the target vehicles on the road section (see at least Van [0052]); acquiring a difference between the reference traveling speed and an original speed limit of the road section (see at least Van [0053] and [0106]); and determining the recommended speed limit of the road section based on the difference (see at least Van [0054] and [0107]-[0112]).
Regarding claim 16, Van discloses a device ..., comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a program code executable by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to (see at least Figure 3, [0092] and claim 1). The rest of claim 16 is commensurate in scope with claim 1. See rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17, Van discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, a method for ... is implemented (see at least Figure 3, [0092] and claim 1). The rest of claim 17 is commensurate in scope with claim 1. See rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 20/25, 21/26, 22/27 and 23/28, claims 20/25, 21/26, 22/27 and 23/28 are commensurate in scope with claims 2, 3, 6 and 7, respectively. See rejection of claims 2, 3, 6 and 7 above.
Claims 8, 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van (US20160210854A1) in view of Kafer (US20250087086A1) in further view of Fowe (US20190035265A1).
Regarding claim 8, Van as modified by Kafer does not explicitly disclose wherein before determining the recommended speed limit of each of the road sections on the target road according to the traveling information, the method further comprises: acquiring a speed limit threshold of the road section; comparing the traveling speed of the traveling information with the speed limit threshold; and removing traveling information greater than the speed limit threshold. However, Fowe teaches wherein before determining the recommended speed limit of each of the road sections on the target road according to the traveling information, the method further comprises: acquiring a speed limit threshold of the road section (see at least [0043]); comparing the traveling speed of the traveling information with the speed limit threshold (see at least [0043]); and removing traveling information greater than the speed limit threshold (see at least [0042] and [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Van as modified by Kafer to incorporate the teachings of Fowe which teaches wherein before determining the recommended speed limit of each of the road sections on the target road according to the traveling information, the method further comprises: acquiring a speed limit threshold of the road section; comparing the traveling speed of the traveling information with the speed limit threshold; and removing traveling information greater than the speed limit threshold since they are directed to speed limit correction(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Fowe would increase efficiency and accuracy of the overall system.
Regarding claims 24 and 29, claims 24 and 29 are commensurate in scope with claim 8. See above for rejection of claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Please observe the prior arts cited in the attached PTO-892 form. Specifically, Examiner points to Laethem (US20130317730A1) and Bai (US20200050209A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30a.m. - 6:30p.m..
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 at (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 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 3667