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 .
Claim Status
This action is in response to the application filed on 08/23/2024. Claims 21-40 are pending and examined below.
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 21-25, 30-34 and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving information indicating one or more lane segments; receive information indicating one or more observables; determine associations between respective ones of the one or more lane segments and the one or more observables; determine, based on the determined associations, driving rules for the respective one or more lane segments, wherein a driving rule for a given lane segment is determined based on one or more properties of the given lane segment and one or more observables associated with the given lane segment; and cause at least a portion of the determined driving rules to be visually presented to a user. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because simply displaying the results of mathematical calculations does not render claims eligible. Further the claims may be completed in the human mind and writing it down on a piece of paper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-22, 24-27, 29-31, 33-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0165072 (“Shubham”).
Regarding claim 21, Shubham teaches receive information indicating one or more lane segments; receive information indicating one or more observables; determine associations between respective ones of the one or more lane segments and the one or more observables; determine, based on the determined associations, driving rules for the respective one or more lane segments, wherein a driving rule for a given lane segment is determined based on one or more properties of the given lane segment and one or more observables associated with the given lane segment; and cause at least a portion of the determined driving rules to be visually presented to a user (see at least [0033]).
Regarding claim 22, Shubham teaches cause a planned vehicle function, that is planned to be performed, to be visually presented to the user (see at least [0033]).
Regarding claim 24, Shubham teaches cause a reason for delay in performance of a planned vehicle function to be visually presented to the user (see at least [0055] the vehicle controlling system 233 associated with the warning generating system 231 and the lane detection and classification system 107, may receive warning signals related to the host vehicle 101 from the warning generating system 231. Thereafter, the vehicle controlling system 233 may control navigation of the host vehicle 101, in real-time, based on the received warning signals).
Regarding claim 25, Shubham teaches determine respective ones of the lane segments which have a previous and next lane segment relationship; join respective ones of the lane segments that have the previous and next lane segment relationship to form a path comprising multiple lane segments; determine driving rules for the path based on properties of one or more of the multiple lane segments and observables associated with one or more of the multiple lane segments; and cause the at least a portion of the determined path and associated driving rules for the path to be visually presented to the user (see at least [0033]).
Regarding claim 26, Shubham teaches determine, for a set of intersecting lane segments, relative priorities for paths comprising respective ones of the lane segments with regard to proceeding through the intersecting lane segments; and include the determined relative priorities for the paths in the determined driving rules (see at least [0008]).
Regarding claim 27, Shubham teaches determine turning classifications for the respective ones of the paths, wherein the turning classifications are selected from a group comprising :a straight path classification; a left turn path classification; a right turn path classification; and a U-turn path classification (see at least [0047]).
Regarding claim 29, Shubham teaches the one or more observables comprise one or more one of: a traffic light; a stop sign; a sign indicating one or more driving rules; and painting on a surface of a roadway indicating one or more driving rules (see at least [0047]).
Regarding claim 30, Shubham teaches receive information indicating one or more lane segments; receive information indicating one or more observables; determine associations between respective ones of the one or more lane segments and the one or more observables; determine based on the determined associations, driving rules for the respective one or more lane segments, wherein a driving rule for a given lane segment is determined based on one or more properties of the given lane segment and one or more observables associated with the given lane segment; and cause at least a portion of the determined driving rules to be visually presented to a user (see at least [0033]).
Regarding claim 31, Shubham teaches causing a planned vehicle function, that is planned to be performed, to be visually presented to the user (see at least [0033]).
Regarding claim 33, Shubham teaches causing an estimated time to performance of a planned vehicle function to be visually presented to the user (see at least [0055]).
Regarding claim 34, Shubham teaches determine respective ones of the lane segments which have a previous and next lane segment relationship; join respective ones of the lane segments that have the previous and next lane segment relationship to form a path comprising multiple lane segments; determine driving rules for the path based on properties of one or more of the multiple lane segments and observables associated with one or more of the multiple lane segments; and cause the at least a portion of the determined path and associated driving rules for the path to be visually presented to the user (see at least [0033]).
Regarding claim 35, Shubham teaches determining, for a set of intersecting lane segments, relative priorities for paths comprising respective ones of the lane segments with regard to proceeding through the intersecting lane segments; and including the determined relative priorities for the paths in the determined driving rules (see at least [0047]).
Regarding claim 36, Shubham teaches receive information indicating one or more lane segments; receive information indicating one or more observables; determine associations between respective ones of the one or more lane segments and the one or more observables; determine, based on the determined associations, driving rules for the respective one or more lane segments, wherein a driving rule for a given lane segment is determined based on one or more properties of the given lane segment and one or more observables associated with the given lane segment; and cause at least a portion of the determined driving rules to be visually presented to a user (see at least [0033]).
Regarding claim 37, Shubham teaches a display device configured to display the at least a portion of the determined driving rules to the use (see at least [0033]).
Regarding claim 38, Shubham teaches cause a planned vehicle function, that is planned to be performed, to be visually presented to the user (see at least [0033]).
Regarding claim 40, Shubham teaches cause an estimated time to performance of a planned vehicle function to be visually presented to the user (see at least [[0055]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 23, 32, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0165072 (“Shubham”) in view of US 20210114616 A1 (“Altman”).
Regarding claim 23, Shubham is not explicit on cause a reason for delay in performance of a planned vehicle function to be visually presented to the user, however,
Altman discloses cause a reason for delay in performance of a planned vehicle function to be visually presented to the user (see at least [0087]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Shubham with the system disclosed by Altman because in mass transportation or public transportation, such as in a bus, train, subway, shuttle, ferryboat, or the like, these problems are further aggravated by the multitude of commuters that share the same vehicle (Altman, [0014]).
Regarding claim 32, Shubham is not explicit on causing a reason for delay in performance of a planned vehicle function to be visually presented to the user, however,
Altman discloses causing a reason for delay in performance of a planned vehicle function to be visually presented to the user (see at least [0087]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Shubham with the system disclosed by Altman because in mass transportation or public transportation, such as in a bus, train, subway, shuttle, ferryboat, or the like, these problems are further aggravated by the multitude of commuters that share the same vehicle (Altman, [0014]).
Regarding claim 39, Shubham is not explicit on cause a reason for delay in performance of a planned vehicle function to be visually presented to the user, however,
Altman discloses cause a reason for delay in performance of a planned vehicle function to be visually presented to the user (see at least [0087]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Shubham with the system disclosed by Altman because in mass transportation or public transportation, such as in a bus, train, subway, shuttle, ferryboat, or the like, these problems are further aggravated by the multitude of commuters that share the same vehicle (Altman, [0014]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0165072 (“Shubham”) in view of US 20220297718 A1 (“Yu”).
Regarding claim 28, Shubham is not explicit on bundle together paths through the intersecting lane segments that share a same turn classification, wherein the relative respective priorities for the respective ones of the paths are determined based on evaluating bundled paths as a bundle instead of as separate paths through the intersecting lane segments, however,
Yu discloses bundle together paths through the intersecting lane segments that share a same turn classification, wherein the relative respective priorities for the respective ones of the paths are determined based on evaluating bundled paths as a bundle instead of as separate paths through the intersecting lane segments (see at least [0082]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Shubham with the system disclosed by Yu because conventional route planning operations may result in unexpected navigation routes under some circumstances (Yu, [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEW FRANKLIN GORDON whose telephone number is (408)918-7612. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 - 5:00 PST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272 - 7298. 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.
/MATHEW FRANKLIN GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665