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 Objections
Claims 9, 17, and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 begins “The method of any claim 7” (emphasis added). It appears “any” is a typo and should be deleted.
Claim 17 begins “The method of claim 17, further comprising….” The number “17” appears to be a typo, and Examiner believes the claims should have depended from claims 16, i.e. “The method of claim 16, further comprising….” For purposes of examination, Examiner will treat claim 17 as depending from claim 16.
Claim 19, at the last limitation, reads “sending the first route and the first route to the mobile device” (emphasis added). It appears that one of the mentions of “first route” is a typo, and should instead read “second route”. For purposes of examination, Examiner will treat the claim as reading “sending the first route and the [[first]] second route to the mobile device”.
Claim 19 recites “sending the second position of the individual member to…a mobile device associated with other individual member” (emphasis added). It appears that an article, or other introductory word, is missing from the limitation, i.e. it should read “sending the second position of the individual member to…a mobile device associated with an other individual member”, or perhaps “each other individual member”, or something similar.
Similarly, claim 19 recites “sending the second route to…the mobile device associated with other individual member” (emphasis added). Examiner believes “other individual member” should likewise be introduced with an article or other introductory word, consistent with the earlier limitation.
Claim 19 also recites the limitation “the leader” in line 16, i.e. in the limitation “sending the second position…to the mobile device associated with the leader”. For clarity purposes, Examiner suggests reciting “the group leader” instead, to be more consistent with the rest of the claim.
Finally, claim 19 recites “for each other individual member”. For clarity purposes, Examiner suggests removing “other” from this limitation, so that it reads “for each individual member”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the mobile device" in the second limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, though it appears that the “a computing device” mentioned in the first limitation was intended to be “a mobile device”. For purposes of examination, Examiner will treat “the mobile device” as having been introduced in the first limitation by “a computing device.
Claim 20 is rejected based at least on its dependence from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
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
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites:
A method for directing a plurality of group members to a leader, the method comprising:
receiving a continuous stream of first global positioning system (GPS) signals from a mobile device associated with the leader;
determining a real-time position of the leader using the continuous stream of first GPS signals;
and for each individual member in the plurality of group members:
receiving a continuous stream of second GPS signals from a mobile device associated with the individual member;
determining a real-time position of the individual member using the continuous stream of second GPS signals;
planning a dynamically changing route from the individual member to the leader based at least partially on the real-time position of the individual member and the real-time position of the leader; and
sending the dynamically changing route to the mobile device associated with the individual member.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of determining a leader position based on gathered GPS signals, determining a position of a member based on gathered GPS signals, and planning a route from the member to the leader based on the positions. This is equivalent to a person observing a screen that shows users’ GPS location, determining each user’s position in the environment/city based on the screen, and planning a route for one user to meet up with another. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person observing GPS positions of users could determine their relative position and plan a route from one to the other. The mere nominal recitation that the transmission is being executed by a computer does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding actual control of the vehicle in a specific manner that is based on the determining and route planning. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element 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.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element 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;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for directing a plurality of group members to a leader, the method comprising:
receiving a continuous stream of first global positioning system (GPS) signals from a mobile device associated with the leader;
determining a real-time position of the leader using the continuous stream of first GPS signals;
and for each individual member in the plurality of group members:
receiving a continuous stream of second GPS signals from a mobile device associated with the individual member;
determining a real-time position of the individual member using the continuous stream of second GPS signals;
planning a dynamically changing route from the individual member to the leader based at least partially on the real-time position of the individual member and the real-time position of the leader; and
sending the dynamically changing route to the mobile device associated with the individual member.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the receiving and sending steps are merely (impliedly) performed by a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
The receiving GPS signal steps recited in the claim are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of an area or navigational data or planned path data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The sending the route step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating steps) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Receiving and sending data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by computers. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the steps are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claims 13 and 19 have similar limitations to claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-18, and 20 are likewise ineligible. The claims merely add to the mental process (such as claims 2-4, 6-8, 14, 17-18), add additional post-solution activity (such as claims 4-5, 6-7, 11-12, 15, 17-18, and 20), or add additional data gathering (such as claims 6-7, 9-10, 14-16, 18, and 20).
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 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20200092384 by Memon (hereinafter “Memon”).
Regarding claim 13, Memon teaches A method, comprising: receiving first global positioning system (GPS) signals from a mobile device associated with a lead member of a group including a plurality of members; determining an absolute position of the lead member using the first GPS signals; See paragraph [0062], where the system designates one user as the leader and another as the follower in order to create a route from the follower to the leader. See also paragraph [0043], where the system receives GPS location data for the first user, where GPS location reads on absolute position. See also paragraphs [0077]-[0078] describing determining a precise location of a user.
and for each individual member in the group other than the lead member: receiving second GPS signals from a mobile device associated with the individual member; determining an absolute position of the individual member using the second GPS signals; see again paragraph [0043], where the system receives GPS signal for a user. Then in paragraphs [0061]-[0062], the system maps a route from the second user (follower) to the first user (leader) based on the second user’s location. Alternatively, in paragraph [0062] the second user can be the leader, so that the first user receives a route based on their position received in paragraph [0043].
planning a route from the individual member to the lead member based at least partially on the absolute position of the individual member and the absolute position of the lead member; see again paragraph [0062], where the system designates one user as the leader and another as the follower in order to create a route from the follower to the leader.
and sending the route to the mobile device associated with the individual member. See again paragraph [0062], where the system presents the route to one or both users.
Regarding claim 15, Memon teaches further comprising: receiving, from the mobile device associated with the lead member, a planned destination for the lead member; see for example paragraph [0059] where the user inputs a destination.
planning a route for the lead member from the absolute position of the lead member to the destination; and sending the planned route to the mobile device associated with the lead member, wherein, for each of the individual members in the group, the route from the individual member to the lead member is further based at least partially on the planned route. See paragraph [0061], where the system presents routes to both users. See also paragraph [0084] and Fig. 10 for example, where the system navigates the follower to the leader, then both together to the destination (and only alternatively describes navigating the follower by a different route to the destination), reading on the route from the individual member to the lead member is further based at least partially on the planned route.
Regarding claim 18, Memon teaches further comprising: detecting an event associated with a first member of the plurality of group members; see for example paragraph [0063], where the system detects a new selection from a user device, including cancelling navigation, change of roles from leader to follower or vice versa, change of destination, etc., any of which read on an event.
determining an absolute position of the first member using third GPS signals from the mobile device associated with the first member received contemporaneously with the detected event; and for each of the individual members in the group and the lead member: planning a new route to the first member based at least partially on the absolute position determined from the third GPS signals; and sending the new route to the mobile device associated with the individual member or the lead member. See paragraph [0065], where the new [event] selection causes the system to return to step 336, i.e. paragraph [0059], where the system receives users’ inputs related to leader/follower, destination, and generates routes accordingly.
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 1, 3-9, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memon, further in view of US20160187141 by Kulkarni et al. (hereinafter “Kulkarni”).
Regarding claim 1, Memon teaches A method for directing See paragraph [0062], where the system designates one user as the leader and another as the follower in order to create a route from the follower to the leader. See also paragraph [0043], where the system receives GPS location data for the first user, where GPS location reads on absolute position. See also paragraphs [0077]-[0078] describing determining a precise location of a user.
and for each individual member in the plurality of group members: receiving a continuous stream of second GPS signals from a mobile device associated with the individual member; determining a real-time position of the individual member using the continuous stream of second GPS signals; see again paragraph [0043], where the system receives GPS signal for a user. Then in paragraphs [0061]-[0062], the system maps a route from the second user (follower) to the first user (leader) based on the second user’s location. Alternatively, in paragraph [0062] the second user can be the leader, so that the first user receives a route based on their position received in paragraph [0043].
planning a dynamically changing route from the individual member to the leader based at least partially on the real-time position of the individual member and the real-time position of the leader; see again paragraph [0062], where the system designates one user as the leader and another as the follower in order to create a route from the follower to the leader.
and sending the dynamically changing route to the mobile device associated with the individual member. See again paragraph [0062], where the system presents the route to one or both users.
Memon does not explicitly teach directing a plurality of group members to a leader. Memon teaches a group having a plurality of members, i.e. a leader and follower, but does not explicitly teach a plurality of members as well as a leader.
However, Kulkarni teaches a system for directing a plurality of group members. See for example paragraphs [0019]-[0021] and Fig. 1, where a plurality of group members participate in group navigation, the group having more than two members. See also paragraph [0102], where a third member joins the navigation session.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the caravan method of Memon with the group navigation of Kulkarni with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a caravan to be more than two vehicles, allowing for easy group navigation of a plurality of vehicles.
Regarding claim 3, Memon teaches wherein the dynamically changing route is updated continuously during a navigation period. See for example paragraph [0065], where the route is updated at regular intervals.
Regarding claim 4, Memon teaches wherein the . See again paragraph [0062], where the system presents routes to all members of the group. Similarly, in paragraph [0065], the regularly updated routes and positions are sent to all members.
Memon does not explicitly teach a plurality of group members as well as a leader. Memon teaches a group having a plurality of members, i.e. a leader and follower, but does not explicitly teach a plurality of members as well as a leader.
However, Kulkarni teaches a system including a plurality of group members and a leader. See for example paragraphs [0019]-[0021] and Fig. 1, where a plurality of group members participate in group navigation, the group having more than two members. See also paragraph [0102], where a third member joins the navigation session.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the caravan method of Memon with the group navigation of Kulkarni with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a caravan to be more than two vehicles, allowing for easy group navigation of a plurality of vehicles.
Regarding claim 5, Memon teaches wherein the dynamically changing route is configured to be displayed on a map at the mobile device associated with the individual member. See again paragraphs [0062] and [0065], where the routes are displayed to both users. See also Fig. 10, displaying the map and route on a user UI.
Regarding claim 6, Memon teaches wherein the leader is an original leader, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving, from the mobile device associated with the original leader, an indication to update the dynamically changing route to direct the plurality of members to a new leader; see for example paragraph [0063], where the system receives a user selection on the leader’s device to, among other things, change the user’s role from leader to follower or vice versa.
receiving a continuous stream of third GPS signals from a mobile device associated with the new leader; determining a real-time position of the new leader using the continuous stream of third GPS signals; and for each of the individual members in the plurality of group members: updating the dynamically changing route from the individual member based at least partially on the real-time position of the new leader; and sending the updated dynamically changing route to the mobile device associated with the individual member. See paragraph [0065], where the new leader selection causes the system to return to step 336, i.e. paragraph [0059], where the system receives user’s inputs related to leader/follower, destination, and generates routes accordingly.
Regarding claim 7, Memon does not explicitly teach, but Kulkarni teaches a system further comprising: detecting an event associated with a first member of the plurality of group members; determining the real-time position of the first member using third GPS signals from the mobile device associated with the first member; see for example paragraph [0051] where the system detects anomalies, including “accidents to a user during navigation”. In [0052] this is detected based on position along the route, such as “a sudden speed reduction from 60 miles per hour to 0 mph.”
and for each of the individual members in plurality of group members and the leader: planning a new dynamically changing route to the first member based at least partially on the real-time position of the first member; and sending the new dynamically changing route to the mobile device associated with the individual member or the leader. See for example paragraphs [0052]-[0059], where in response to detecting an anomaly the incident is reported to the other group members, and responsively updating the navigation route, such as navigating the group to the user who met an accident. See also paragraph [0033], where “If server determines there is an anomaly (i.e., step 255=“Y”), then process 200 proceeds to step 260 where intelligence engine 118 may update the navigation objects of the group leader and/or group members to provide a deviation from the navigation route and travel to the non-reaching group member that has a navigation anomaly” (emphasis added).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the caravan method of Memon with the group navigation of Kulkarni with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a caravan to be more than two vehicles, allowing for easy group navigation of a plurality of vehicles.
Regarding claim 8, Memon does not explicitly teach, but Kulkarni teaches wherein the detected event is at least one of: an impact alert; a rest stop; a deviation to a new destination; a timer-based event at a location; a deviation outside of a geofenced area; or an SOS signal. See for example paragraphs [0051]-[0059] where the system detects an accident occurring, reading on an impact alert.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the caravan method of Memon with the group navigation of Kulkarni with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a caravan to be more than two vehicles, allowing for easy group navigation of a plurality of vehicles.
Regarding claim 9, Memon does not explicitly teach, but Kulkarni teaches a system further comprising receiving, from the mobile device associated with the first member, one or more inputs associated with the detected event. See paragraph [0052], where “a sudden speed reduction from 60 miles per hour (mph) to 0 mph” for detecting an anomaly reads on receiving…one or more inputs associated with the detected event.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the caravan method of Memon with the group navigation of Kulkarni with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a caravan to be more than two vehicles, allowing for easy group navigation of a plurality of vehicles.
Regarding claim 16, Memon teaches further comprising: for each of the individual members in the group, receiving third GPS signals from the mobile device associated with the individual member after sending the route to the mobile device associated with the individual member; . See again paragraph [0043], where the system receives GPS signal for a user. Then in paragraphs [0061]-[0062], the system maps a route from the second user (follower) to the first user (leader) based on the second user’s location. Alternatively, in paragraph [0062] the second user can be the leader, so that the first user receives a route based on their position received in paragraph [0043]. This is continuously updated in paragraph [0065], and users can change roles in paragraph [0063].
Memon does not explicitly teach for a first individual member from the individual members, detecting a deviation from the route based on the third GPS signals.
However, Kulkarni teaches a system wherein for a first individual member from the individual members, detecting a deviation from the route based on the third GPS signals. See for example paragraph [0051] where the system detects anomalies, including “accidents to a user during navigation”. In [0052] this is detected based on position along the route, such as “a sudden speed reduction from 60 miles per hour to 0 mph.” This position deviation reads on a deviation from the rout based on third GPS signals.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the caravan method of Memon with the group navigation of Kulkarni with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a caravan to be more than two vehicles, allowing for easy group navigation of a plurality of vehicles.
Regarding claim 17, Memon does not explicitly teach, but Kulkarni teaches a method further comprising, for the individual member with the detected deviation: planning a new route from the first individual member to the lead member based at least partially on the third GPS signals associated with the detected deviation; and sending the new route to the mobile device associated with the first individual member. See for example paragraphs [0052]-[0059], where in response to detecting an anomaly the incident is reported to the other group members, and responsively updating the navigation route, such as navigating the group to the user who met an accident. See also paragraph [0033], where “If server determines there is an anomaly (i.e., step 255=“Y”), then process 200 proceeds to step 260 where intelligence engine 118 may update the navigation objects of the group leader and/or group members to provide a deviation from the navigation route and travel to the non-reaching group member that has a navigation anomaly” (emphasis added).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the caravan method of Memon with the group navigation of Kulkarni with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a caravan to be more than two vehicles, allowing for easy group navigation of a plurality of vehicles.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memon in view of Kulkarni as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20210180964 by Yi et al. (hereinafter “Yi”).
Regarding claim 2, Memon does not explicitly teach wherein the dynamically changing route is updated at least every second. Although Memon updates the route at regular intervals (see [
However, Yi teaches a system wherein the dynamically changing route is updated at least every second. See for example paragraph [0051], where the routes may be updated every second.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the caravan method of Memon, modified by the group navigation of Kulkarni, with the every-second updates of Yi with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the dynamically updating route to be as current as possible.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memon in view of Kulkarni as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20160379152 by Rodoni (hereinafter “Rodoni”).
Regarding claim 10, Memon does not explicitly teach, but Rodoni does teach, a method further comprising: receiving, from the mobile device associated with the leader, inputs related to a maximum time for the leader to spend in a defined location; detecting, based on the real-time position of the leader, when the leader arrives at the defined location; and in response to detecting the leader arriving at the defined location, starting a timer. See for example paragraph [0039], where the system starts timing the vehicle (starting a timer) once it stops (at a defined location, here a planned stop at a target location, see [0036]), and then compares the timer to a threshold time (maximum time) to determine if the vehicle has stopped for too long. Based on the vehicle stopping too long, the system receives an input from the operator may select options to explain the delay, reading on receiving, from the mobile device associated with the leader, inputs related to a maximum time for the leader to spend in a defined location.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the caravan method of Memon, modified by the group navigation of Kulkarni, with the timed delay of Rodoni with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a caravan system to determine when a vehicle has delayed for too long in order to determine a deviation, improving the utility of the group navigation application.
Regarding claim 11, Memon does not explicitly teach, but Rodoni does teach, a method further comprising: when the timer reaches the maximum time for the leader to spend in the defined location, sending a notification to the leader prompting one or more inputs related to exceeding the maximum time. See again [0039], where in response to determining that the vehicle has exceeded the threshold time at a target location, the system prompts the driver for inputs relating to the delay.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the caravan method of Memon, modified by the group navigation of Kulkarni, with the timed delay of Rodoni with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a caravan system to determine when a vehicle has delayed for too long in order to determine a deviation, improving the utility of the group navigation application.
Regarding claim 12, Memon does not explicitly teach, but Rodoni does teach, a method further comprising: when the timer reaches the maximum time for the leader to spend in the defined location, sending a notification to a third party related to the leader exceeding the maximum time at the defined location. See again [0039], where numerous third parties may be notified of the delay, such as electronically logging a fault in the server, or sending an alert to the back office.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the caravan method of Memon, modified by the group navigation of Kulkarni, with the timed delay of Rodoni with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a caravan system to determine when a vehicle has delayed for too long in order to determine a deviation, improving the utility of the group navigation application.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memon as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US20210131813 by Chen et al. (hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 14, Memon teaches wherein the absolute position of the lead member is a first absolute position of the lead member, see again paragraphs [0043] and [0062], describing determining the GPS location of a leader, where GPS location reads on absolute position. See also paragraphs [0077]-[0078] describing determining a precise location of a user.
and wherein the method further comprises: receiving third GPS signals from the mobile device associated with the lead member, wherein the first GPS signals are associated with a first time, and wherein the third GPS signals are associated with a second time later than the first time; determining a second absolute position of the lead member using the first GPS signals at the second time; see for example paragraph [0065], where the system tracks the user’s position in real time in order to regularly update the route.
and projecting a third absolute position of the lead member at a third time see again paragraph [0065], where the system tracks the user’s position in real time in order to regularly update the route, where a third update interval of position would read on a third absolute position of the lead member at a third time.
wherein, for each of the individual members in the group, the route from the individual member to the lead member is further based at least partially on the third absolute position of the lead member. See again paragraph [0065], where the system tracks the every user’s position in real time in order to regularly update the route.
Memon does not explicitly teach projecting a third absolute position of the lead member at a third time based at least partially on a difference between the first absolute position of the lead member and the second absolute position of the lead member.
However, Chen teaches projecting a third absolute position of the lead member at a third time based at least partially on a difference between the first absolute position of the lead member and the second absolute position of the lead member. See for example paragraph [0032], where the system updates each user’s estimated arrival time based on their real-time route progress, reading on projecting a third absolute position of the lead member at a third time based at least partially on a difference between the first absolute position of the lead member and the second absolute position of the lead member.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the caravan method of Memon with the ETA system of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to estimate a future position where the vehicles will meet up, such as the destination, improving users’ ability to plan their journey.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memon, and further in view of US20200393847 by Govindan et al. (hereinafter “Govindan”).
Regarding claim 19, Memon teaches A method, comprising: receiving, from a computing device associated with a group leader, one or more destinations for a group having a plurality of group members; see again [0053]-[0054] and [0061] where the system maps a route to the destination.
receiving a continuous stream of first global positioning system (GPS) signals from the mobile device associated with the group leader; determining a first position of the group leader using the continuous stream of first GPS signals; planning a first route from the first position to each of the one or more destinations; sending the first route to the mobile device associated with the group leader; see again [0043] where the users’ positions are tracked via GPS. See also [0061] where a route to the destination is created.
and for each other individual member in the plurality of group members: receiving a continuous stream of second GPS signals from a mobile device associated with the individual member; determining a second position of the individual member using the continuous stream of second GPS signals; sending the second position of the individual member to the mobile device associated with the leader and see again [0061] where the route is presented to all members of the caravan, as well as paragraph [0065] where the users’ positions are regularly updated.
planning a second route from the individual member to each of the one or more destinations; sending the second route to the mobile device associated with the individual member, the mobile device associated with the group leader, . See paragraph [0061], where the system presents routes to both users. See also paragraph [0084] and Fig. 10 for example, where the system navigates the follower to the leader, then both together to the destination (or alternatively describes navigating the follower by a different route to the destination).
Memon does not explicitly teach a group which has other individual member[s] besides the leader and a follower. That is, Memon only explicitly teaches a two-member group, with a leader and a follower.
However, Govindan teaches a group having other individual member[s] besides the leader and a follower. See for example paragraphs [0021] or [0106], where the vehicles participating in a group can include a plurality of follower vehicles.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary ksill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the caravan system of Memon with the plurality of following vehicles of Govindan with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves the ability of the system to accommodate more extensive caravans.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memon in view of Govindan as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US20140214933 by Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 20, Memon teaches wherein the destination is associated with a . See for example paragraph [0066], where the navigation detects that a user is in a location that coincides with the destination.
Memon does not explicitly teach a geofence boundary.
However, Govindan teaches a geofence boundary. See for example paragraph [0090], where the system determines if the leader/follower vehicle is within a predetermined distance of the destination, reading on the destination is associated with a geofence boundary.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary ksill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the caravan system of Memon with the plurality of following vehicles of Govindan with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves the ability of the system to accommodate more extensive caravans.
Memon does not explicitly teach sending a notification, to the mobile device associated with the group leader, indicating the first individual member is present at the destination.
However, Liu teaches sending a notification, to the mobile device associated with the group leader, indicating the first individual member is present at the destination. See for example paragraph [0065], where the system notifies all drivers when one driver in the group arrives.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the caravan system of Memon, modified by the multiple follower system of Govindan, with the arrival notification system of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the users to more easily determine who has arrived, enhancing convenience of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20240344833 by Deselaers et al. teaching navigation to a shared destination, including finding an en-route meeting location.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights