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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 02/18/2026. In the instant Amendment, claims 1, 9 and 17 were amended; claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al (“Crawford,” US 20150293232) in view of Simms et al (“Simms,” WO 2014/145154).
Regarding claim 1, Crawford discloses a method, comprising:
defining, by a vehicle system, delta coordinates indicative of a positional relationship between a vehicle and a distinct location separate from the vehicle; (Crawford in [0029], FIG 7, 302, calculate latitude delta, 310, calculate longitude delta; FIG 4, 90 & 92 describe defining, by a vehicle system, delta coordinates indicative of a positional relationship between a vehicle and a distinct location separate from the vehicle; also see [0005]-[0011])
converting, by the vehicle system, absolute coordinates of the vehicle to ambiguous coordinates, the ambiguous coordinates including the delta coordinates representing the distinct location; (Crawford in [0029]-[0031], [0051], Figures 1-2, 4, 7; converting, by the vehicle system, absolute coordinates of the vehicle to ambiguous coordinates, the ambiguous coordinates including the delta coordinates representing the distinct location; also see [0005]-[0011])
outputting, by the vehicle system, a message including anonymized location data as a location of the vehicle, the anonymized location data including and the delta coordinates, (Crawford in discloses FIG 4, items 24 & 72, Figure 5, steps 118-120 outputting, by the vehicle system, a message including anonymized location data as a location of the vehicle, the anonymized location data including and the delta coordinates; also see [0005]-[0011])
Crawford fails to explicitly disclose and a distinct location separate from the vehicle; the ambiguous coordinates including hash coordinates representing the distinct location; retrieving, by the vehicle system, a map tile associated with the ambiguous coordinates from among a plurality of map tiles; and
However, in an analogous art, Simms discloses and a distinct location separate from the vehicle (Simms discloses FIG 17, items 1702, geocode system 1710, data system; FIG 1, item 106 GPS receiver, FIG 2 describes and a distinct location separate from the vehicle)
the ambiguous coordinates including hash coordinates representing the distinct location, (Simms discloses Figures 2-4, [0005]-[0007], [0036] the ambiguous coordinates including hash coordinates representing the distinct location as geohash values)
retrieving, by the vehicle system, a map tile associated with the ambiguous coordinates from among a plurality of map tiles; (Simms discloses FIG 13, method 1300, steps 1308-1310; Figures 9A-9B retrieving, by the vehicle system, a map tile associated with the ambiguous coordinates from among a plurality of map tiles; also see Figures 2-4, and FIG 11, [0005])
and outputting, by the vehicle system, a message including anonymized location data as a location of the vehicle, the anonymized location data including the map tile, (Simms discloses method 1300, FIG 13, step 1312; FIG 8, FIG 4, and outputting, by the vehicle system, a message including anonymized location data as a location of the vehicle, the anonymized location data including the map tile, [0005])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Simms with Crawford to include and a distinct location separate from the vehicle; the ambiguous coordinates including hash coordinates representing the distinct location; retrieving, by the vehicle system, a map tile associated with the ambiguous coordinates from among a plurality of map tiles; and. One would have been obvious to provide a method and system for generating and using a geocode trie to determine a location based on a geohash generated from location coordinates (Simms, [0002]).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is a directed to a system. Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, Crawford discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining, by a vehicle system, absolute coordinates of a vehicle using at least one location signal from a satellite network; (Crawford, [0027], [0030] GPS data 18 is generated by a GPS network 22 that includes a series of GPS satellites 20; FIG 1, items 18, 20, 22 describe GPS satellites/network providing location signals; [0029]-[0031], [0051] FIG 2, item 42 describes GPS receiver 42 in or accessible to the vehicle obtaining absolute GPS coordinates; FIG 5, Step 100 determine GPS location, [0040] describes the location tracking device 12 uses the GPS receiver 42 to determine the initial GPS location; also see [0005]-[0011])
defining, by the vehicle system, delta coordinates indicative of a positional relationship between the vehicle and the distinct location; (Crawford discloses [0046] Prelative=Pcurrent-Pprevious; FIG 7, Steps 302, calculate latitude delta, 310 calculate longitude delta describe a delta computation; [0023] describes calculate a vehicle’s current position relative to its previous position; also see [0005]-[0011])
converting, by the vehicle system, the absolute coordinates of the vehicle to ambiguous coordinates, the ambiguous coordinates including the delta coordinates that represent the distinct location; (Crawford in [0029]-[0031], [0051] FIG 7 steps 302-316, FIG 4, items 88, 90, 92 converting, by the vehicle system, the absolute coordinates of the vehicle to ambiguous coordinates, the ambiguous coordinates including the delta coordinates that represent the distinct location; also see [0005]-[0011])
and outputting, by the vehicle system, a message including anonymized location data, (Crawford in FIG 5, [0040]-[0041] discloses and outputting, by the vehicle system, a message including anonymized location data; also see [0005]-[0011])
Crawford fails to explicitly disclose identifying, by the vehicle system, a distinct location separate from the vehicle using the absolute coordinates; converting, by the vehicle system, the absolute coordinates of the vehicle to ambiguous coordinates, the ambiguous coordinates including the and hash coordinates that represent the distinct location; retrieving, by the vehicle system, a map tile associated with the ambiguous coordinates from among a plurality of map tiles; retrieving, by the vehicle system, a map tile associated with the ambiguous coordinates from among a plurality of map tiles.
However, in an analogous art, Simms discloses identifying, by the vehicle system, a distinct location separate from the vehicle using the absolute coordinates, (Simms discloses in FIG 2 each geohash value is generated based on location coordinates as described above using a substantial center of a tile as location coordinates for each particular tile where the tile center is the distinct location, identified by absolute latitude or longitude; [0058] Figures 9A-9B described lat. 37.781910, lon -122.416607 used to identify the Tenderloin tile-a distinct location; also see [0005]-[0007])
converting, by the vehicle system, the absolute coordinates of the vehicle to ambiguous coordinates, the ambiguous coordinates including the and hash coordinates that represent the distinct location; (Simms in [0005]-[0007], [0036] Figures 2-4 describe converting, by the vehicle system, the absolute coordinates of the vehicle to ambiguous coordinates, the ambiguous coordinates including the and hash coordinates that represent the distinct location)
retrieving, by the vehicle system, a map tile associated with the ambiguous coordinates from among a plurality of map tiles; (Simms in [0005]-[0007], FIG 13, method 1300, steps 1308-1310; claims 1 and 16; Figures 9A-9B, Figures 2-4, FIG 11 describes retrieving, by the vehicle system, a map tile associated with the ambiguous coordinates from among a plurality of map tiles; [0005], [0031], [0035])
and outputting, by the vehicle system, a message including anonymized location data including the map tile, (Simms in [0005]-[0007], FIG 8, FIG 13, step 1312, claim 16 describe and outputting, by the vehicle system, a message including anonymized location data including the map tile)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Simms with Crawford to include identifying, by the vehicle system, a distinct location separate from the vehicle using the absolute coordinates; converting, by the vehicle system, the absolute coordinates of the vehicle to ambiguous coordinates, the ambiguous coordinates including the and hash coordinates that represent the distinct location; retrieving, by the vehicle system; a map tile associated with the ambiguous coordinates from among a plurality of map tiles. One would have been obvious to provide a method and system for generating and using a geocode trie to determine a location based on a geohash generated from location coordinates (Simms, [0002]).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al (“Crawford,” US 20150293232) in view of Simms et al (“Simms,” WO 2014/145154) and further in view of Steinmetz et al (“Steinmetz,” US 9,794,373).
Regarding claim 2, Crawford and Simms disclose the method of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Steinmetz discloses further comprising identifying, by the vehicle system, the distinct location separate from the vehicle using the absolute coordinates, (Steinmetz discloses further comprising identifying, by the vehicle system (Col. 4, Lines 32-43), the distinct location (Col. 4, Line 18 & 39-40) separate from the vehicle (Col. 3, Lines 47-50) using the absolute coordinates (Col. 4, Lines 32-43))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Steinmetz with Crawford and Simms to include further comprising identifying, by the vehicle system, the distinct location separate from the vehicle using the absolute coordinates. One would have been obvious to ensure user anonymity when using travel and navigation data in a digital mapping system (Steinmetz, Col. 1, Lines 7-10)
Regarding claim 10, Crawford and Simms disclose the system of claim 9.
Crawford and Simms fail to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to: obtain the absolute coordinates using at least one location signal from a satellite network, and identify the distinct location separate from the vehicle using the absolute coordinates
However, in an analogous art, Steinmetz discloses wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to: obtain the absolute coordinates using at least one location signal from a satellite network, and identify the distinct location separate from the vehicle using the absolute coordinates, (Steinmetz describes wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to: obtain the absolute coordinates (Col. 4, Lines 32-43) using at least one location signal from a satellite network (Col. 3, Lines 26-32; Col. 3, Line 12), and identify the distinct location (Col. 4, Line 18 & 39-40) separate from the vehicle (Col. 4, Lines 32-43) using the absolute coordinates (Col. 4, Lines 32-43)))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Steinmetz with Crawford and Simms to include further comprising identifying, by the vehicle system, the distinct location separate from the vehicle using the absolute coordinates. One would have been obvious to ensure user anonymity when using travel and navigation data in a digital mapping system (Steinmetz, Col. 1, Lines 7-10)
Claims 3, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al (“Crawford,” US 20150293232) in view of Simms et al (“Simms,” WO 2014/145154) and further in view of Guberman et al (“Guberman,” US 20230136710).
Regarding claim 3, Crawford and Simms disclose the method of claim 1.
Crawford and Simms fail to explicitly disclose further comprising: identifying, by the vehicle system, a location characteristic of an area having the absolute coordinates; and altering, by the vehicle system, information related to the location characteristic of the area to generate an obfuscated characteristic unidentifiable to the area, the anonymized location data being further defined using the obfuscated characteristic.
However, in an analogous art, Guberman discloses identifying, by the vehicle system, a location characteristic of an area having the absolute coordinates; and altering, by the vehicle system, information related to the location characteristic of the area to generate an obfuscated characteristic unidentifiable to the area, the anonymized location data being further defined using the obfuscated characteristic, (Guberman describes identifying, by the vehicle system [0005], a location characteristic of an area [0007] having the absolute coordinates [0166]; and altering, by the vehicle system [0005], information related to the location characteristic of the area [0007] to generate an obfuscated characteristic unidentifiable to the area [0446], the anonymized location data [0446]-[0447] being further defined using the obfuscated characteristic [0446])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Guberman with Crawford and Simms to include identifying, by the vehicle system, a location characteristic of an area having the absolute coordinates; and altering, by the vehicle system, information related to the location characteristic of the area to generate an obfuscated characteristic unidentifiable to the area, the anonymized location data being further defined using the obfuscated characteristic. One would have been obvious to provide a method and system for vehicle navigation (Guberman, [0002]).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is a directed to the system of claim 9. Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is a directed to the method of claim 17. Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al (“Crawford,” US 20150293232), Simms et al (“Simms,” WO 2014/145154) in view of Guberman et al (“Guberman,” US 20230136710) and further in view of Kim et al (“Kim,” US 20210389144).
Regarding claim 4, Crawford, Simms and Guberman disclose the method of claim 3.
Crawford, Simms and Guberman fail to explicitly disclose wherein the location characteristic includes at least one of, a landmark associated with the map tile, a curvature of a road upon which the vehicle is traveling, or an identification of the road.
However, in an analogous art, Kim discloses wherein the location characteristic includes at least one of, (Kim describes wherein the location characteristic [0203])
a landmark associated with the map tile, (Kim describes a landmark [0392] associated with the map tile [0199])
a curvature of a road upon which the vehicle is traveling,
or an identification of the road.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim with Crawford, Simms and Guberman to include wherein the location characteristic includes at least one of, a landmark associated with the map tile, a curvature of a road upon which the vehicle is traveling, or an identification of the road. One would have been obvious to provide user interfaces that enable a user to view navigation routes that are customized for a respective vehicle (Kim, [0002])
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is a directed to the system of claim 11. Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al (“Crawford,” US 20150293232) in view of Simms et al (“Simms,” WO 2014/145154), Guberman et al (“Guberman,” US 20230136710) in view of Kim et al (“Kim,” US 20210389144) and further in view of Ibrahim et al (“Ibrahim,” US 20050251335).
Regarding claim 5, Crawford, Simms, Guberman and Kim disclose the method of claim 4.
Crawford, Simms, Guberman and Kim fail to explicitly disclose wherein altering information of the location characteristic includes at least one of modifying a physical characteristic of the landmark, changing the curvature of the road, or redacting the identification of the road.
However, in an analogous art, Ibrahim discloses wherein altering information of the location characteristic includes at least one of modifying a physical characteristic of the landmark, changing the curvature of the road, or redacting the identification of the road, (Ibrahim describes wherein altering information of the location characteristic includes at least one of modifying a physical characteristic of the landmark,
changing the curvature of the road, (Ibrahim, [0012]-[0013] describes changing the curvature of the road)
or redacting the identification of the road)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ibrahim with Crawford, Simms, Guberman and Kim to include wherein altering information of the location characteristic includes at least one of modifying a physical characteristic of the landmark, changing the curvature of the road, or redacting the identification of the road. One would have been obvious to provide a navigation system for vehicles maneuvering through curves (Ibrahim, [0001]).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is a directed to the system of claim 12. Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al (“Crawford,” US 20150293232) in view of Simms et al (“Simms,” WO 2014/145154) and further in view of Croyle et al (“Croyle,” US 5,862,511).
Regarding claim 6, Crawford and Simms disclose the method of claim 1.
Crawford and Simms fail to explicitly disclose further comprising updating, by the vehicle system, the delta coordinates based on movement of the vehicle.
However, in an analogous art, Croyle discloses further comprising updating, by the vehicle system, the delta coordinates based on movement of the vehicle, (Croyle describes Col. 4, Lines 53-63 further comprising updating, by the vehicle system, the delta coordinates based on movement of the vehicle Col. 8, Lines 42-50)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Croyle with Crawford and Simms to include further comprising updating, by the vehicle system, the delta coordinates based on movement of the vehicle. One would have been obvious to provide an improved vehicle navigation system (Croyle, Col. 3, Lines 58-62).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is a directed to the system of claim 9. Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al (“Crawford,” US 20150293232) and further in view of Simms et al (“Simms,” WO 2014/145154), Croyle et al (“Croyle,” US 5,862,511) in view of Laprise et al (“Laprise,” US 20240419906) in view of Merwaday et al (“Merwaday,” US 20230300579).
Regarding claim 7, Crawford, Simms and Croyle disclose the method of claim 6.
Crawford, Simms and Croyle fail to explicitly disclose further comprising, in response to an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) event, storing, by the vehicle system, data indicative of the absolute coordinates of the vehicle at time of the ADAS event; and generating, by the vehicle system, vehicle data associated with the ADAS event, wherein the message further includes the vehicle data,
However, in an analogous art, Laprise discloses further comprising, in response to an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) event, storing, by the vehicle system, data indicative of the absolute coordinates of the vehicle at time of the ADAS event; and generating, by the vehicle system, vehicle data associated with the ADAS event, wherein the message further includes the vehicle data, (Laprise describes further comprising, in response to an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) event [0044], storing, by the vehicle system [0036], data indicative of the absolute coordinates [0048] of the vehicle at time of the ADAS event; [0044] and generating [0047], by the vehicle system [0036], vehicle data associated with the ADAS even [0044]t, wherein the message further includes the vehicle data [0327])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Laprise with Crawford and Simms to include further comprising, in response to an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) event, storing, by the vehicle system, data indicative of the absolute coordinates of the vehicle at time of the ADAS event; and generating, by the vehicle system, vehicle data associated with the ADAS event, wherein the message further includes the vehicle data. One would have been obvious to provide advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) (Laprise, [0036]).
Crawford, Simms and Laprise fail to explicitly disclose wherein the anonymized location data includes the map tile and the delta coordinates associated with the ADAS event.
However, in an analogous art, Merwaday discloses wherein the anonymized location data includes the map tile and the delta coordinates associated with the ADAS event, (Merwaday describes wherein the anonymized location data [0018] includes the map tile [0088], and the delta coordinates [0012], [0038] associated with the ADAS event [0289])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Merwaday with Crawford, Simms and Laprise to include wherein the anonymized location data includes the map tile and the delta coordinates associated with the ADAS event. One would have been obvious to provide advanced driver-assistance applications (Merwaday, [0018]).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is a directed to the system of claim 14. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al (“Crawford,” US 20150293232), Simms et al (“Simms,” WO 2014/145154) in view of Croyle et al (“Croyle,” US 5,862,511) further in view of Gupta et al (“Gupta,” US 20240351599).
Regarding claim 8, Crawford, Simms and Croyle disclose the method of claim 6.
Crawford, Simms and Croyle fail to explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving, from a remote server, a vehicle data request, wherein: the message is outputted to the remote server in response to the vehicle data request and includes at least one vehicle data and the delta coordinates at time of the vehicle data request.
However, in an analogous art, Gupta discloses further comprising: receiving, from a remote server, a vehicle data request, wherein: the message is outputted to the remote server in response to the vehicle data request and includes at least one vehicle data and the delta coordinates at time of the vehicle data request, (Gupta describes further comprising: receiving [0068], from a remote server [0134], a vehicle data request [0109], wherein: the message is outputted to the remote server [0134] in response to the vehicle data request [0109] and includes at least one vehicle data [0044] and the delta coordinates [0058] at time of the vehicle data request [0109])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gupta with Crawford, Simms and Croyle to include further comprising: receiving, from a remote server, a vehicle data request, wherein: the message is outputted to the remote server in response to the vehicle data request and includes at least one vehicle data and the delta coordinates at time of the vehicle data request. One would have been obvious to provide safe vehicle backup navigation (Gupta, [0055]).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is a directed to the system of claim 14. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al (“Crawford,” US 20150293232), Simms et al (“Simms,” WO 2014/145154) Guberman et al (“Guberman,” US 20230136710) in view of Kim et al (“Kim,” US 20210389144) and further in view of Ibrahim et al (“Ibrahim,” US 20050251335).
Regarding claim 19, Crawford, Simms and Guberman disclose the method of claim 18.
Crawford, Simms and Guberman fail to explicitly disclose wherein: the location characteristic includes at least one of, a landmark associated with the map tile, a curvature of a road upon which the vehicle is traveling, or an identification of the road, and the altering information of the location characteristic includes at least one of modifying a physical characteristic of the landmark, changing the curvature of the road, or redacting the identification of the road.
However, in an analogous art, Kim discloses wherein: the location characteristic includes at least one of, (Kim describes wherein the location characteristic [0203])
a landmark associated with the map tile, (Kim describes a landmark [0392] associated with the map tile [0199])
a curvature of a road upon which the vehicle is traveling,
or an identification of the road,
and the altering information of the location characteristic includes at least one of modifying a physical characteristic of the landmark, changing the curvature of the road, or redacting the identification of the road.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim with Crawford, Simms and Guberman to include wherein: the location characteristic includes at least one of, a landmark associated with the map tile, a curvature of a road upon which the vehicle is traveling, or an identification of the road, and the altering information of the location characteristic includes at least one of modifying a physical characteristic of the landmark, changing the curvature of the road, or redacting the identification of the road. One would have been obvious to provide user interfaces that enable a user to view navigation routes that are customized for a respective vehicle (Kim, [0002])
Crawford, Simms, Guberman and Kim fail to explicitly disclose and the altering information of the location characteristic includes at least one of modifying a physical characteristic of the landmark, changing the curvature of the road, or redacting the identification of the road.
However, in an analogous art, Ibraham discloses and the altering information of the location characteristic includes at least one of modifying a physical characteristic of the landmark, changing the curvature of the road, or redacting the identification of the road. (Ibrahim describes wherein altering information of the location characteristic includes at least one of modifying a physical characteristic of the landmark,
changing the curvature of the road, (Ibrahim, [0012]-[0013] describes changing the curvature of the road)
or redacting the identification of the road)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ibrahim with Crawford, Simms, Guberman and Kim to include wherein altering information of the location characteristic includes at least one of modifying a physical characteristic of the landmark, changing the curvature of the road, or redacting the identification of the road. One would have been obvious to provide a navigation system for vehicles maneuvering through curves (Ibrahim, [0001]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al (“Crawford,” US 20150293232), Simms et al (“Simms,” WO 2014/145154) in view of Laprise et al (“Laprise,” US 20240419906) and further in view of Merwaday et al (“Merwaday,” US 20230300579).
Regarding claim 20, Crawford and Simms disclose the method of claim 17.
Crawford and Simms fail to explicitly disclose further comprising, in response to an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) event, generating, by the vehicle system, vehicle data associated with the ADAS event, wherein the message further includes the vehicle data; and storing, by the vehicle system, at least one of the vehicle data and data indicative of the absolute location of the vehicle at time of the ADAS event, wherein the anonymized location data includes the map tile and the delta coordinates associated with the ADAS event.
However, in an analogous art, Laprise discloses further comprising, in response to an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) event, generating, by the vehicle system, vehicle data associated with the ADAS event, wherein the message further includes the vehicle data; and storing, by the vehicle system, at least one of the vehicle data and data indicative of the absolute location of the vehicle at time of the ADAS event, (Laprise describes further comprising, in response to an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) event [0044], generating, by the vehicle system [0036], vehicle data [0036] associated with the ADAS event [0044], wherein the message further includes the vehicle data [0036]; and storing, by the vehicle system [0036], at least one of the vehicle data [0036] and data indicative of the absolute location [0048] of the vehicle [0036] at time of the ADAS event [0044])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Laprise with Crawford and Simms to include further comprising, in response to an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) event, generating, by the vehicle system, vehicle data associated with the ADAS event, wherein the message further includes the vehicle data; and storing, by the vehicle system, at least one of the vehicle data and data indicative of the absolute location of the vehicle at time of the ADAS event. One would have been obvious to provide advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) (Laprise, [0036]).
Crawford, Simms and Laprise fail to explicitly disclose wherein the anonymized location data includes the map tile and the delta coordinates associated with the ADAS event.
However, in an analogous art, Merwaday discloses wherein the anonymized location data includes the map tile and the delta coordinates associated with the ADAS event, (Merwaday describes wherein the anonymized location data [0018] includes the map tile [0088], and the delta coordinates [0012], [0038] associated with the ADAS event [0289])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Merwaday with Crawford, Simms and Laprise to include further comprising, in response to an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) event, generating, by the vehicle system, vehicle data associated with the ADAS event, wherein the message further includes the vehicle data; and storing, by the vehicle system, at least one of the vehicle data and data indicative of the absolute location of the vehicle at time of the ADAS event, wherein the anonymized location data includes the map tile and the delta coordinates associated with the ADAS event. One would have been obvious to provide advanced driver-assistance applications (Merwaday, [0018]).
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 JAMES J WILCOX whose telephone number is (571)270-3774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 A.M. to 5 P.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, Luu T. Pham can be reached at (571)270-5002. 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.
/JAMES J WILCOX/ Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights