DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on November 12, 2025.
Claims 11, 14-20, and 24-28 are currently amended.
Claims 1-10 were previously canceled.
Claims 11-30 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the outstanding Claim Objection:
The outstanding claim objection of claim 20 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. Claim 20 is now an independent claim.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that, “the claimed invention provides concrete instructions that allow the claimed automatic mapping to be conducted as efficiently as possible, namely by managing the fleet vehicles limited memory resources efficiently and by avoiding redundant and thus unnecessary capturing of surroundings data. This is why Applicant respectfully traverses the Examiner’s view that the claimed invention would not be integrated into a practical application.” See page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks filed on November 12, 2025.
Applicant further argues, that the “present application is comparable with Example 40 of the 2019 PEG ‘Adaptive Monitoring of Network Traffic Data’. As in the 2019 PEG, ‘Specifically, the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance.” See page 9 of Applicant’s Remarks filed on November 12, 2025.
Further, Applicant states that the, “method of Example 40 is comparable with the invention in that both improve efficiency in a resource-constrained computer environment.” See page 9 of Applicant’s Remarks filed on November 12, 2025.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claims, 11 and 19m of the current application have all been amended to include, “collect surroundings data upon a next travel through the surrounding area using a respective vehicle-specific surroundings sensor system only for a respective one of the one or more subareas that have not been mapped so as to save memory resources of the fleet vehicles”. This limitation regarding saving memory resources is recited at a high level of generality. A vehicle receiving general instructions to collect data in a specific geographic area as opposed to a larger geographic area does not rise to the level of overcoming a 35 USC 101 rejection. There are no specific requirements defining what measures are taken, for example, by limiting data flow by comparing against a threshold, that define how the memory resources are saved.
In contract, Example 40 claims, “comparing, by the network appliance, at least one of the collected traffic data to a predefined threshold; and collecting additional traffic data relating to the network traffic when the collected traffic data is greater than the predefined threshold, the additional traffic data comprising Netflow protocol data.” The explanation of Example 40 states that, “Although each of the collecting steps analyzed individually may be viewed as mere pre- or post-solution activity, the claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in collecting traffic data. Specifically, the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoid excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. The claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception.” See page 11 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas.
Another example found by the courts to include patent eligible limitations is claim 3 in Example 47 listed in the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. The explanation of claim 3 states that the claimed invention includes an improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection, “[s]teps (d)-(f) provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets. Specifically, the claim reflects the improvement in step (d), dropping potentially malicious packets in step (e), and blocking future traffic from the source address in step (f). These steps reflect the improvement described in the background. Thus the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. … The additional elements in steps (d)-(f), when considered in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim improves the functioning of a computer or technical field.” See pages 12-13, July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples.
Since there are no specific claim limitations explaining the criteria for determining how the memory of the fleet vehicles is saved nor does the specification provide any further information, the outstanding 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained for pending claims 11-19 and 21-28.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that, “Vora fails to teach or to fairly suggest, as claimed, defining one of more subareas of the surrounding area that have not been mapped by the fleet vehicles. Vora is silent on any ‘subarea’. The Examiner refers to a disclosure of waypoints in Vora, however waypoints are not subareas.” See page 11 of Applicant’s Remarks filed on November 12, 2025.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Waypoints that define segments defining a navigation route, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be considered subareas. Newly cited reference, Watanabe (Publication US 2022/0099459 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Watanabe”), discloses, “the wording ‘road section or roadlink’ is used as a data management unit for probe data or map data. However, the data management unit also includes the concept of meshes into which a map is divided. Here, with reference to FIG. 6, meshes into which a map is divided as data management units will be described.”
Applicant further argues that, “Vora fails to teach or to fairly suggest one or more subareas that have not been mapped, as claimed.” See page 11 of Applicant’s Remarks filed on November 12, 2025. This argument is regarding the current claim amendments, which changed the scope of the claim and prompted an updated search. A new reference, Watanabe, was found as a result of the updated search that discloses this limitation and is explained in the rejection outlined below.
Applicant still further argues that, “Vora fails to reach or to fairly suggest, as claimed, iteratively instructing, for each one of the one or more subareas, one of the fleet vehicles in accordance with the mapping plan to autonomously collect surroundings data upon a next travel through the surrounding area using a respective vehicle-specific surroundings sensor system only for the respective one of the one or more subareas that have not been mapped so as to save memory resources of the fleet vehicles.” See page 11 of Applicant’s Remarks filed on November 12, 2025. This argument is regarding the current claim amendments, which changed the scope of the claim and prompted an updated search. A new reference, Watanabe, was found as a result of the updated search that discloses this limitation and is explained in the rejection outlined below.
Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections are maintained, however, they are revised, as follows, based on Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 29 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: The independent claim from which they both depend, claim 20 has an amended preamble that states, “An autonomous motor vehicle”. The preambles for dependent claims 29 and 30 have not been amended to be consistent with the independent claim from which they depend. For purposes of compact prosecution, the preambles of claims 29 and 30 are interpreted to be, “The autonomous motor vehicle of claim 20”. 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 11-19 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally
link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to a method (i.e., a process).
Claim 19 is directed to a server (i.e., an apparatus).
Therefore, claims 11 and 19 are each within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 19 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim (representing claim 11).
Claim 19 recites:
A vehicle-external server, comprising an input interface for recording input data from a plurality of fleet vehicle, a data processor for processing the recorded input data into a route network map, a mapping plan, and a map for a surrounding area, and an output interface for sending output data to the fleet vehicle, wherein the server is configured to:
record odometry data that were collected by fleet vehicles while traveling through the surrounding area and that indicate positions within the surrounding area traveled to by the fleet vehicles;
create a route network map for the surrounding area from the odometry data;
create a mapping plan for mapping sections of the surrounding area based on the route network map, which mapping plan splits the surrounding area into multiple subareas;
define one or more subareas of the surrounding area that have not been mapped by the fleet vehicles; and
iteratively instruct, for each one of the one or more subareas, one of the fleet vehicles in accordance with the mapping plan to autonomously collect surroundings data upon a next travel through the surrounding area using a respective vehicle-specific surroundings sensor system only for a respective one of the one or more subareas still that have not been mapped so as to save memory resources of the fleet vehicles and to transmit said data to the server; and
generate a map of the surrounding area and updating the mapping plan based on the cumulatively received surroundings data in order to prevent redundant surroundings data for already mapped subareas of the surrounding area from being collected and transmitted by the fleet vehicles.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “create a route network map for the surrounding area from the odometry data”; “create a mapping plan for mapping sections of the surrounding area based on the route network map, which mapping plan splits the surrounding area into multiple subareas”; “define one or more subareas of the surrounding area that have not been mapped by the fleet vehicles”; and … “generate a map of the surrounding area and updating the mapping plan based on the cumulatively received surroundings data in order to prevent redundant surroundings data for already mapped subareas of the surrounding area from being collected and transmitted by the fleet vehicles” in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing these limitations in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle-external server, comprising an input interface for recording input data from a plurality of fleet vehicle, a data processor for processing the recorded input data into a route network map, a mapping plan, and a map for a surrounding area, and an output interface for sending output data to the fleet vehicle, wherein the server is configured to:
record odometry data that were collected by fleet vehicles while traveling through the surrounding area and that indicate positions within the surrounding area traveled to by the fleet vehicles;
create a route network map for the surrounding area from the odometry data;
create a mapping plan for mapping sections of the surrounding area based on the route network map, which mapping plan splits the surrounding area into multiple subareas;
define one or more subareas of the surrounding area that have not been mapped by the fleet vehicles; and
iteratively instruct, for each one of the one or more subareas, one of the fleet vehicles in accordance with the mapping plan to autonomously collect surroundings data upon a next travel through the surrounding area using a respective vehicle-specific surroundings sensor system only for a respective one of the one or more subareas still that have not been mapped so as to save memory resources of the fleet vehicles and to transmit said data to the server; and
generate a map of the surrounding area and updating the mapping plan based on the cumulatively received surroundings data in order to prevent redundant surroundings data for already mapped subareas of the surrounding area from being collected and transmitted by the fleet vehicles.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “an input interface for recording input data from a plurality of fleet vehicle, a data processor for processing the recorded input data into a route network map, a mapping plan, and a map for a surrounding area, and an output interface for sending output data to the fleet vehicle” and “record odometry data that were collected by fleet vehicles while traveling through the surrounding area and that indicate positions within the surrounding area traveled to by the fleet vehicles”, they merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose navigation environment. The at least one processor and communicatively connected memory are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the abstract idea steps.
Regarding the additional limitations of “iteratively instruct, for each one of the one or more subareas, one of the fleet vehicles in accordance with the mapping plan to autonomously collect surroundings data upon a next travel through the surrounding area using a respective vehicle-specific surroundings sensor system only for a respective one of the one or more subareas still that have not been mapped so as to save memory resources of the fleet vehicles and to transmit said data to the server”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that merely transmit data. In particular, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data) and amount to mere post solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The Examiner notes that, the claim limitation has been amended to include “iteratively instruct, for each one of the one or more subareas, one of the fleet vehicles in accordance with the mapping plan to autonomously collect surroundings data upon a next travel through the surrounding area”, but this limitation does not recite explicit control of the autonomous vehicle. Rather, this limitation requires sending an instruction signal to collect surroundings data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity that merely transmits data including an instruction. In fact, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, there is a scenario where the vehicle never acts upon the instruction to collect surroundings data because there is no next travel through the surrounding area.
Further, the claim limitation has been amended to include “so as to save memory resources of the fleet vehicles”, which is recited at a high level of generality. A vehicle receiving general instructions to collect data in a specific geographic area as opposed to a larger geographic area does not rise to the level of overcoming a 35 USC 101 rejection. Rather, the scenarios that have been found by the courts to include patent eligible limitations require more specific information regarding how the function of the computer itself is improved. See, for example, claim 3 in Example 47 listed in the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 19 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the “create a route network map for the surrounding area from the odometry data”; “create a mapping plan for mapping sections of the surrounding area based on the route network map, which mapping plan splits the surrounding area into multiple subareas”; “define one or more subareas of the surrounding area that have not been mapped by the fleet vehicles”; and … “generate a map of the surrounding area and updating the mapping plan based on the cumulatively received surroundings data in order to prevent redundant surroundings data for already mapped subareas of the surrounding area from being collected and transmitted by the fleet vehicles” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “an input interface for recording input data from a plurality of fleet vehicle, a data processor for processing the recorded input data into a route network map, a mapping plan, and a map for a surrounding area, and an output interface for sending output data to the fleet vehicle” and “record odometry data that were collected by fleet vehicles while traveling through the surrounding area and that indicate positions within the surrounding area traveled to by the fleet vehicles”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Similarly, the additional limitations of “iteratively instruct, for each one of the one or more subareas, one of the fleet vehicles in accordance with the mapping plan to autonomously collect surroundings data upon a next travel through the surrounding area using a respective vehicle-specific surroundings sensor system only for a respective one of the one or more subareas still that have not been mapped so as to save memory resources of the fleet vehicles and to transmit said data to the server”, the Examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that merely involves transmitting data instructions. In particular, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data) and amounts to mere post solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, is well understood, routine, and conventional, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “an input interface for recording input data from a plurality of fleet vehicle, a data processor for processing the recorded input data into a route network map, a mapping plan, and a map for a surrounding area, and an output interface for sending output data to the fleet vehicle” and “record odometry data that were collected by fleet vehicles while traveling through the surrounding area and that indicate positions within the surrounding area traveled to by the fleet vehicles”, and “iteratively instruct, for each one of the one or more subareas, one of the fleet vehicles in accordance with the mapping plan to autonomously collect surroundings data upon a next travel through the surrounding area using a respective vehicle-specific surroundings sensor system only for a respective one of the one or more subareas still that have not been mapped so as to save memory resources of the fleet vehicles and to transmit said data to the server”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a navigation system and the iterative instruction to collect surroundings data is well understood, routine, and conventional extra-solution activity. 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 22-28 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 22-28 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 19.
Therefore, claims 11-19 and 21-28 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watanabe (Publication US 2022/0099459 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Watanabe”.)
As per claim 20, Watanabe discloses an autonomous motor vehicle [see at least Watanabe [0052] "...In the case of automatic driving, in the in-vehicle apparatus 23, a control signal for autonomously traveling the travel route is output to the in-vehicle actuator, and automatic driving control is performed."], comprising:
a surroundings sensor system and a data processing apparatus for collecting surroundings data which characterize a respective surroundings of the autonomous motor vehicle [see at least Watanabe Fig. 3 "10 In-Vehicle Camera (Peripheral Info)", "4 Input Device", "5 Recording Device"],
a data storage for temporarily storing the surroundings data on the vehicle side [see at least Watanabe Fig 3 "5 Recording Device", "7 Map DB"], and
a communication interface for wireless data exchange with a vehicle-external server [see at least Watanabe Fig 3 "6 Communication Device", "20 Internet", "22 Data Center"],
wherein the autonomous motor vehicle is configured, in response to receiving a corresponding instruction from the server, to collect surroundings data only for a previously not-mapped subarea of the surrounding area in accordance with the instruction when autonomously traveling through a surroundings area specified in said instruction so as to save memory resources of the data storage, to temporarily store said surroundings data in the data storage, and to send said surroundings data to the server [see at least Watanabe [0029] "… the probe data integration device 14 determines a road section or road link for which the number of probe data required for generating/updating map data is insufficient as a shortage road unit."; [0055] "In each of the above embodiments, the wording “road section or road link” is used as a data management unit for probe data or map data. However, the data management unit also includes the concept of meshes into which a map is divided. Here, with reference to FIG. 6, meshes into which a map is divided as data management units will be described."; [0042] "When the in-vehicle apparatus 23 receives a notification about the shortage road unit from the data center 11, that is, when the in-vehicle apparatus 23 receives the probe instruction signal described later, the shortage road unit presentation device 24 displays the information on the shortage road unit to be traveled included in the probe instruction signal. The probe instruction signal is transmitted to the in-vehicle apparatus 23 in the vehicle A when the position of the shortage road unit exists within a circle having a predetermined distance... from the current position of the vehicle A or the planned travel route. The shortage road unit presentation device 4, together with the route guidance device 8, functions as a guidance device that recommends that the host vehicle A travel on the shortage road unit."; [0015] "The input device 4 is connected with the in-vehicle camera 10, The input device 4 receives camera image information, that is, peripheral information taken by the in-vehicle camera 10 while the vehicle A is traveling. ... traveling information from various in-vehicle sensors 11 is input to the input device 4. The various in-vehicle sensors 11 include a speed sensor that detects the speed of the host vehicle, and a direction sensor that detects the traveling direction, that is, the direction of the host vehicle."; [0017] " ...the probe data recorded in the recording device 5 is transmitted to the data center 2 by the communication device 6 periodically]; {autonomously collect} [0064] "... the data center can make the service vehicle run unmanned on the shortage road unit by transmitting a probe instruction signal for traveling the shortage road unit to the service vehicle that is not in use. A service vehicle includes a vehicle equipped with an automatic driving function and used for MaaS (MobilityasaService) such as unmanned taxis or unmanned fixed-route buses."; [0025] "Then, when the probe data integration device 14 generates the data of the shortage road unit, the communication device 13 notifies the in-vehicle apparatus 3 of each vehicle A of the data of the shortage road unit. ... the data of the shortage road unit is written in the probe data integrated map database 17. However, after that, when more probe data than necessary is collected and the shortage state is resolved, the corresponding road section or road link is deleted from the data of the shortage road unit. In addition, the data of the shortage road unit notified to each in-vehicle apparatus 3 also includes data to the effect that the corresponding road section or road link in which the shortage state has been resolved should be deleted from the data of the shortage road unit."]
As per claim 29, Watanabe discloses wherein the surrounding area is identified based on predefined map data and/or metadata that identify the surrounding area as a trafficable area, without indicating a detailed map of the surrounding area [see at least Watanabe [0019] "...a high-precision basic map data that can be used for an automatic driving control of the vehicle A is generated and stored in the master map database 18. Then, the high-precision basic map data stored in the master map database 18 is also distributed to each vehicle..."; [0023] "The difference comparison device 15 compares the integrated map data integrated by the probe data integration device 14 with the basic map data stored in the master map database 18 to obtain a difference. Then, the difference may be obtained by the difference comparison device 15..."; [0024] "...the probe data integration device 14 not only performs the integration process of integrating the probe data, but also determines the road section or road link as a data management unit that is insufficient in the number of probe data required for a road map data generating and updating process of generating/updating map data. "]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11-12, 14-19, 22, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vora (Publication US 2019/0172349 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Vora”), in view of Watanabe.
As per claim 19 (representative of claim 11), Vora discloses a vehicle-external server, comprising an input interface for recording input data from a plurality of fleet vehicle, a data processor for processing the recorded input data into a route network map, a mapping plan, and a map for a surrounding area, and an output interface for sending output data to the fleet vehicle [see at least Vora [0040] "The computer 210 includes a processor and a memory. The memory includes one or more forms of computer-readable media, and stores instructions executable by the computer 210 for performing various operations, including as disclosed herein."; [0046] "The vehicle 180 may include one or more LIDAR sensor(s) 130, providing data encompassing at least some of an exterior of the vehicle 180. The LIDAR sensor 230 may include a processor that is programmed to transmit LIDAR data via the vehicle 180 network."; [0046] "The vehicle 180 may include one or more LIDAR sensor(s) 130, providing data encompassing at least some of an exterior of the vehicle 180. The LIDAR sensor 230 may include a processor that is programmed to transmit LIDAR data via the vehicle 180 network. The LIDAR data may be received by the vehicle 180 computer 210 from LIDAR sensors 230 in a known manner"; [0047] "In addition, the computer 210 may be programmed to communicate through a wireless communication network with, e.g., a remote computer."], wherein the server is configured to:
record odometry data that were collected by fleet vehicles while traveling through the surrounding area and that indicate positions within the surrounding area traveled to by the fleet vehicles [see at least Vora [0052] "The computer 210 and/or a remote computer may be programmed to generate and/or to update a 3D map, that covers an area 105 included in the received aerial image 110, based at least in part on received LIDAR sensor 230 data. The computer 210 may be programmed to receive vehicle 180 location coordinates from a vehicle 180 GPS sensor 230, and to store the received vehicle LIDAR sensor 230 data and the vehicle 180 location coordinates in a remote computer."];
create a route network map for the surrounding area from the odometry data [see at least Vora [0053] "The 3D maps are generated based on LIDAR data collected by the mapping vehicle 180 traversing the routes in the area 105. The computer 210 may be programmed, e.g., using known optimization techniques, to determine the route based on the waypoints 120 such that a total driven distance to traverse each road 130 of the area 105 is minimized."];
create a mapping plan for mapping sections of the surrounding area based on the route network map, which mapping plan splits the surrounding area into multiple subareas [see at least Vora [0051] "...As shown in FIG. 4, the computer 210 may be programmed to identify waypoints 120d, 120h and a plurality of other waypoints between the waypoints 120d, 120h on a road segment 170c. The computer 210 may be programmed to identify an optimal set of waypoints 120d, 120e, 120f, 120g, and 120h, and to fit a curve on the optimal set of waypoints 120d, 120e, 120f, 120g, and 120h to determine the road 130 segment 170c based on a maximum error threshold, e.g., 1 m. Thus, the selected waypoints 120d, 120e, 120f, 120g, and 120h may include a first waypoint 120d and a second waypoint 120h on a road 130 segment 170c, and a curve fitted to the first and second waypoints 120d, 120h corresponds to the road 130 segment 170c between the first and second waypoints 120d, 120h."]
Vora fails to disclose … define one or more subareas of the surrounding area that have not been mapped by the fleet vehicles; and iteratively instruct, for each one of the one or more subareas, one of the fleet vehicles in accordance with the mapping plan to autonomously collect surroundings data upon a next travel through the surrounding area using a respective vehicle-specific surroundings sensor system only for a respective one of the one or more subareas still that have not been mapped so as to save memory resources of the fleet vehicles and to transmit said data to the server; and generate a map of the surrounding area and updating the mapping plan based on the cumulatively received surroundings data in order to prevent redundant surroundings data for already mapped subareas of the surrounding area from being collected and transmitted by the fleet vehicles. However, Watanabe teaches these limitations:
… define one or more subareas of the surrounding area that have not been mapped by the fleet vehicles [see at least Watanabe [0024] "… the road section or road link is determined to be a shortage road unit which has a shortage in the required number of probe data."; [0029] "… the probe data integration device 14 determines a road section or road link for which the number of probe data required for generating/updating map data is insufficient as a shortage road unit."; [0055] "In each of the above embodiments, the wording “road section or road link” is used as a data management unit for probe data or map data. However, the data management unit also includes the concept of meshes into which a map is divided. Here, with reference to FIG. 6, meshes into which a map is divided as data management units will be described."{this is a scenario where the data for a road section/area is not yet mapped due to a disaster} [0062] "...When the in-vehicle apparatus interrupts the automatic driving for a reason other than overriding by the user, the in-vehicle apparatus uploads data including that fact to the data center together with the location information. In other words, when the in-vehicle apparatus executes the authority transfer process to the driver due to the system limit or MRM (Minimal Risk Maneuver), the in-vehicle apparatus uploads the fact to the data center together with the data position information indicating that fact."; [0063] "In this case, the data center determines a road section or road link in which the frequency of interruption of automatic driving within a predetermined period of time is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value as a shortage road unit based on probe data from a plurality of vehicles A. ... Here, it is possible that one of the causes of the interruption or failure of the automatic driving control of the vehicle A is that there was some defect in the basic map data of the road section or road link. Therefore, the road section or road link where the automatic driving is interrupted is set as a shortage road unit."]; and
iteratively instruct, for each one of the one or more subareas, one of the fleet vehicles in accordance with the mapping plan to autonomously collect surroundings data upon a next travel through the surrounding area using a respective vehicle-specific surroundings sensor system only for a respective one of the one or more subareas still that have not been mapped so as to save memory resources of the fleet vehicles and to transmit said data to the server [see at least Watanabe [0042] "When the in-vehicle apparatus 23 receives a notification about the shortage road unit from the data center 11, that is, when the in-vehicle apparatus 23 receives the probe instruction signal described later, the shortage road unit presentation device 24 displays the information on the shortage road unit to be traveled included in the probe instruction signal. The probe instruction signal is transmitted to the in-vehicle apparatus 23 in the vehicle A when the position of the shortage road unit exists within a circle having a predetermined distance... from the current position of the vehicle A or the planned travel route. The shortage road unit presentation device 4, together with the route guidance device 8, functions as a guidance device that recommends that the host vehicle A travel on the shortage road unit."; [0015] "The input device 4 is connected with the in-vehicle camera 10, The input device 4 receives camera image information, that is, peripheral information taken by the in-vehicle camera 10 while the vehicle A is traveling. ... traveling information from various in-vehicle sensors 11 is input to the input device 4. The various in-vehicle sensors 11 include a speed sensor that detects the speed of the host vehicle, and a direction sensor that detects the traveling direction, that is, the direction of the host vehicle."; [0017] " ...the probe data recorded in the recording device 5 is transmitted to the data center 2 by the communication device 6 periodically]; {autonomously collect} [0064] "... the data center can make the service vehicle run unmanned on the shortage road unit by transmitting a probe instruction signal for traveling the shortage road unit to the service vehicle that is not in use. A service vehicle includes a vehicle equipped with an automatic driving function and used for MaaS (MobilityasaService) such as unmanned taxis or unmanned fixed-route buses."; [0025] "Then, when the probe data integration device 14 generates the data of the shortage road unit, the communication device 13 notifies the in-vehicle apparatus 3 of each vehicle A of the data of the shortage road unit. ... the data of the shortage road unit is written in the probe data integrated map database 17. However, after that, when more probe data than necessary is collected and the shortage state is resolved, the corresponding road section or road link is deleted from the data of the shortage road unit. In addition, the data of the shortage road unit notified to each in-vehicle apparatus 3 also includes data to the effect that the corresponding road section or road link in which the shortage state has been resolved should be deleted from the data of the shortage road unit."]; and
generate a map of the surrounding area and updating the mapping plan based on the cumulatively received surroundings data in order to prevent redundant surroundings data for already mapped subareas of the surrounding area from being collected and transmitted by the fleet vehicles [see at least Watanabe [0013] "...The data center 2 collects probe data from a large number of vehicles A and generates 1 updates a road map data."; [0024] "...the probe data integration device 14 has a function as a data shortage determination device. For example, suppose a case where for a road section or road link, the collected probe data have not reached 10 (ten) as a require number of probe data even when one month elapses since the road map data generating and updating process was previously performed. In such a case, the road section or road link is determined to be a shortage road unit which has a shortage in the required number of probe data. In the case of a road having a plurality of lanes, a shortage is determined for each lane. The data of this shortage road unit is also written in the probe data integrated map database 17."; [0025] "Then, when the probe data integration device 14 generates the data of the shortage road unit, the communication device 13 notifies the in-vehicle apparatus 3 of each vehicle A of the data of the shortage road unit. Therefore, the communication device 13 has a function as a notification device. As described above, the data of the shortage road unit is written in the probe data integrated map database 17. However, after that, when more probe data than necessary is collected and the shortage state is resolved, the corresponding road section or road link is deleted from the data of the shortage road unit. In addition, the data of the shortage road unit notified to each in-vehicle apparatus 3 also includes data to the effect that the corresponding road section or road link in which the shortage state has been resolved should be deleted from the data of the shortage road unit."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed in Vora to use … define one or more subareas of the surrounding area that have not been mapped by the fleet vehicles; and iteratively instruct, for each one of the one or more subareas, one of the fleet vehicles in accordance with the mapping plan to autonomously collect surroundings data upon a next travel through the surrounding area using a respective vehicle-specific surroundings sensor system only for a respective one of the one or more subareas still that have not been mapped so as to save memory resources of the fleet vehicles and to transmit said data to the server; and generate a map of the surrounding area and updating the mapping plan based on the cumulatively received surroundings data in order to prevent redundant surroundings data for already mapped subareas of the surrounding area from being collected and transmitted by the fleet vehicles as disclosed in Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved coverage of collected probe data. [See at least Watanabe [0034].]
As per claim 22 representative of claim 12), the combination of Vora and Watanabe, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 19.
Vora discloses … wherein the surrounding area is identified based on predefined map data and/or metadata that identify the surrounding area as a trafficable area, without indicating a detailed map of the surrounding area [see at least Vora [0033] "An aerial image 110 is a top view of an area 105, e.g., an image captured by a camera above ground surface directed to the ground surface. The camera may be mounted to a satellite 140, aircraft, helicopter, unmanned aerial vehicles (or drones), balloon, stand-alone pole, etc. In one example, a field of view 150 of the satellite 140 camera may output aerial image 110 data including the area 105."; FIG. 1]
As per claim 24 (representative of claim 14), the combination of Vora and Watanabe, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 19.
Vora fails to disclose … wherein the one or more subareas are defined by indicating the already mapped subareas and excluding same from the further collection of surroundings data. However, Watanabe teaches this limitation [see at least Watanabe [0025] "Then, when the probe data integration device 14 generates the data of the shortage road unit, the communication device 13 notifies the in-vehicle apparatus 3 of each vehicle A of the data of the shortage road unit. Therefore, the communication device 13 has a function as a notification device. As described above, the data of the shortage road unit is written in the probe data integrated map database 17. However, after that, when more probe data than necessary is collected and the shortage state is resolved, the corresponding road section or road link is deleted from the data of the shortage road unit. In addition, the data of the shortage road unit notified to each in-vehicle apparatus 3 also includes data to the effect that the corresponding road section or road link in which the shortage state has been resolved should be deleted from the data of the shortage road unit."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed in Vora to use … wherein the one or more subareas are defined by indicating the already mapped subareas and excluding same from the further collection of surroundings data as disclosed in Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved coverage of collected probe data. [See at least Watanabe [0034].]
As per claim 25 (representative of claim 15), the combination of Vora and Watanabe, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 19.
Vora fails to disclose … wherein the one or more subareas are defined by explicitly indicating them as such in the mapping plan. However, Watanabe teaches this limitation [see at least Watanabe [0025] "Then, when the probe data integration device 14 generates the data of the shortage road unit, the communication device 13 notifies the in-vehicle apparatus 3 of each vehicle A of the data of the shortage road unit. Therefore, the communication device 13 has a function as a notification device. As described above, the data of the shortage road unit is written in the probe data integrated map database 17. However, after that, when more probe data than necessary is collected and the shortage state is resolved, the corresponding road section or road link is deleted from the data of the shortage road unit. In addition, the data of the shortage road unit notified to each in-vehicle apparatus 3 also includes data to the effect that the corresponding road section or road link in which the shortage state has been resolved should be deleted from the data of the shortage road unit."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed in Vora to use … wherein the one or more subareas are defined by explicitly indicating them as such in the mapping plan as disclosed in Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved coverage of collected probe data. [See at least Watanabe [0034].]
As per claim 26 (representative of claim 16), the combination of Vora and Watanabe, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 19.
Vora fails to disclose … wherein the one of the fleet vehicles is informed by the server only when they approach the respective surrounding area up to a predefined distance over the respective one of the subareas of said surrounding area. However, Watanabe teaches this limitation [see at least Watanabe [0042] "When the in-vehicle apparatus 23 receives a notification about the shortage road unit from the data center 11, that is, when the in-vehicle apparatus 23 receives the probe instruction signal described later, the shortage road unit presentation device 24 displays the information on the shortage road unit to be traveled included in the probe instruction signal. The probe instruction signal is transmitted to the in-vehicle apparatus 23 in the vehicle A when the position of the shortage road unit exists within a circle having a predetermined distance... from the current position of the vehicle A or the planned travel route. The shortage road unit presentation device 4, together with the route guidance device 8, functions as a guidance device that recommends that the host vehicle A travel on the shortage road unit."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed in Vora to use … wherein the one of the fleet vehicles is informed by the server only when they approach the respective surrounding area up to a predefined distance over the respective one of the subareas of said surrounding area as disclosed in Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved coverage of collected probe data. [See at least Watanabe [0034].]
As per claim 27 (representative of claim 17), the combination of Vora and Watanabe, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 19.
Vora fails to disclose … wherein, for the purpose of instructing the fleet vehicles, not the entire route network map, but rather a comparatively smaller amount of orientation data that make it possible for the fleet vehicles to recognize their approach to the respective one of the one or more subareas are sent from the server to the fleet vehicles, wherein the orientation data indicate individual route points, in particular leading from an entrance into the surrounding area to the respective subarea, and/or indicate a sequence of driver events, in particular leading from an entrance into the surrounding area to the subarea. However, Watanabe teaches this limitation [see at least Watanabe [0042] "When the in-vehicle apparatus 23 receives a notification about the shortage road unit from the data center 11, that is, when the in-vehicle apparatus 23 receives the probe instruction signal described later, the shortage road unit presentation device 24 displays the information on the shortage road unit to be traveled included in the probe instruction signal. The probe instruction signal is transmitted to the in-vehicle apparatus 23 in the vehicle A when the position of the shortage road unit exists within a circle having a predetermined distance... from the current position of the vehicle A or the planned travel route. The shortage road unit presentation device 4, together with the route guidance device 8, functions as a guidance device that recommends that the host vehicle A travel on the shortage road unit."; [0027] "in the in-vehicle apparatus 3, when the route guidance device 8 is caused to seek and guide the route to the destination, the route guidance device 8 executes the route guidance so that the route to the destination includes the shortage road unit. Further, in this case, it is determined whether the influence on the arrival time when guiding the route including the shortage road unit is small with respect to the recommended route to the destination obtained by the route guidance device 8. When it is determined that the influence is small, the guidance route is provided to include the shortage road unit."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed in Vora to use … wherein, for the purpose of instructing the fleet vehicles, not the entire route network map, but rather a comparatively smaller amount of orientation data that make it possible for the fleet vehicles to recognize their approach to the respective one of the one or more subareas are sent from the server to the fleet vehicles, wherein the orientation data indicate individual route points, in particular leading from an entrance into the surrounding area to the respective subarea, and/or indicate a sequence of driver events, in particular leading from an entrance into the surrounding area to the subarea as disclosed in Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved coverage of collected probe data. [See at least Watanabe [0034].]
As per claim 28 (representative of claim 18), the combination of Vora and Watanabe, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 19.
Vora fails to disclose … wherein the mapping plan defines the one or more subareas and/or subareas that have already been mapped individually for surroundings data that have been recorded by different types of surroundings sensors. However, Watanabe teaches this disclosure [0024] "In this case, as described later in the explanation of the action, in the present embodiment, the probe data integration device 14 not only performs the integration process of integrating the probe data, but also determines the road section or road link as a data management unit that is insufficient in the number of probe data required for a road map data generating and updating process of generating/updating map data. Therefore, the probe data integration device 14 has a function as a data shortage determination device."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed in Vora to use … wherein the mapping plan defines the one or more subareas and/or subareas that have already been mapped individually for surroundings data that have been recorded by different types of surroundings sensors as disclosed in Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved coverage of collected probe data. [See at least Watanabe [0034].]
Claims 13, 21, and 23, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vora, in view of Watanabe and Herbach, et al. (Publication US 2016/0351056 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Herbach.”)
As per claim 23 (representative of claim 13), the combination of Vora and Watanabe, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 19.
The combination of Vora and Watanabe fails to disclose … wherein iteratively instructing is applied for surrounding areas in which a sufficient data connection for sending the surroundings data from the fleet vehicles to the server cannot be set up, wherein the surroundings data are then recorded by the server after the respective fleet vehicle has left the surrounding area. However, Herbach teaches this limitation [see at least Herbach [0024] "The technology relates to an autonomous vehicle for autonomously setting and executing fallback requests....These types of fallback tasks are useful in situations such as when the vehicle is ... loses connection to a fleet management server, or for whatever reason lacks any specific executable instructions as to what to do next after completing any other higher priority tasks. In these situations, the vehicle is still capable of safely driving for a length of time and therefore capable of executing fallback tasks involving continued driving."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed in the combination of Vora and Watanabe to use … wherein iteratively instructing is applied for surrounding areas in which a sufficient data connection for sending the surroundings data from the fleet vehicles to the server cannot be set up, wherein the surroundings data are then recorded by the server after the respective fleet vehicle has left the surrounding area as disclosed in Herbach with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of safe control of autonomous vehicles. [See at least Herbach [0024].]
As per claim 21, the combination of Vora and Watanabe, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 13.
The combination of Vora and Watanabe fails to disclose … wherein the method is applied for surrounding areas in which a sufficient data connection for sending the surroundings data from the fleet vehicles to the server cannot be set up. However, Herbach teaches this limitation [see at least Herbach [0024] "The technology relates to an autonomous vehicle for autonomously setting and executing fallback requests....These types of fallback tasks are useful in situations such as when the vehicle is ... loses connection to a fleet management server, or for whatever reason lacks any specific executable instructions as to what to do next after completing any other higher priority tasks. In these situations, the vehicle is still capable of safely driving for a length of time and therefore capable of executing fallback tasks involving continued driving."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed in the combination of Vora and Watanabe to use … wherein the method is applied for surrounding areas in which a sufficient data connection for sending the surroundings data from the fleet vehicles to the server cannot be set up as disclosed in Herbach with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of safe control of autonomous vehicles. [See at least Herbach [0024].]
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, in view of Herbach.
As per claim 30, Watanabe, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 20.
Watanabe fails to disclose … wherein the method is applied for surrounding areas in which a sufficient data connection for sending the surroundings data from the fleet vehicles to the server cannot be set up. However, Herbach teaches this limitation [see at least Herbach [0024] "The technology relates to an autonomous vehicle for autonomously setting and executing fallback requests....These types of fallback tasks are useful in situations such as when the vehicle is ... loses connection to a fleet management server, or for whatever reason lacks any specific executable instructions as to what to do next after completing any other higher priority tasks. In these situations, the vehicle is still capable of safely driving for a length of time and therefore capable of executing fallback tasks involving continued driving."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed in Watanabe to use … wherein the method is applied for surrounding areas in which a sufficient data connection for sending the surroundings data from the fleet vehicles to the server cannot be set up as disclosed in Herbach with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of safe control of autonomous vehicles. [See at least Herbach [0024].]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights