DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 5/12/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims present an improvement to a technical field in the form of real-time mobile emissions mapping by improving accuracy and timeliness (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 13), it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., improved accuracy and timeliness of emissions mapping) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims do not recite any limitation regarding the accuracy of the system, and paragraph 44 of Applicant’s specification explicitly discloses the vehicle’s sensor data are less accurate than infrastructure devices. Although the claims recite determining real-time vehicle emissions of the second vehicle, storing the real-time vehicle emissions, and analyzing vehicle emissions along a path, there is no disclosure of reducing the time in which the analysis is performed. It is further noted that although the system determines the real-time vehicle emissions of the second vehicle, the claims do not explicitly disclose the determination and recording of the real-time vehicle emissions are performed in real-time. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims recite integration with the first vehicle’s specific hardware, including sensors and its navigation component (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 13), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to a system comprising a generic processor and generic memory. The system includes the sensor data, measurements of pollutants, and observations of vehicle behavior, however, the claims do not disclose the sensors themselves are included in the system. The system includes a location of the first vehicle, however, the claims do not disclose a navigation component is included in the system. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that real-time determination of emissions using a template-selected model is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field of vehicle emissions monitoring (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 14), it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., selecting a model from a template) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Although Applicant’s Specification discloses the vehicle template may contain models for estimating emissions, there does not appear to be disclosure of selecting one of the models. See rejections below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the dual-record update architecture is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field of vehicle emissions monitoring (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Emissions monitoring is a field of data science, in which updating two or more records of a database is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity. As an example, Nayak, in the field of vehicle emission measurement, discloses storing estimated emission values in a database to create a table of locations paired with estimated emission levels. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the integration with the vehicle’s sensors, navigation, and environmental analysis system is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field of vehicle emissions monitoring (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the processor of the system evaluates the sensor data from the first vehicle and updates a geographical record based on a location of the first vehicle, no specific integration is claimed between the system and the vehicle in order to provide the sensor data and location from the vehicle to the system’s processor. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Nayak cannot produce real-time vehicle emissions because Nayak’s system would misidentify the emissions of idling or towed vehicles (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 15), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nayak, in paragraphs 75-77, discloses the collection vehicle collects probe data at a specific time interval and uses it to calculate estimated emissions values. Nayak further discloses, in paragraph 27, the probe data is collected at a predetermined time interval (e.g., every second, every 100 milliseconds, or another interval). Paragraph 65 of Applicant’s Specification defines the term “real-time” as a level of processing responsiveness that a user or system senses as sufficiently immediate for a particular process or determination to be made, or that enables the processor to keep up with some external process. Therefore, Nayak’s system produces real-time vehicle emissions in the manner defined by Applicant. It is further noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., estimating the emissions of idling and towed vehicles) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See rejection below.
Drawings
The replacement drawings received on 5/12/2026 are acceptable.
Specification
The amendments to the specification were received on 5/12/2026.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the implied phrase “described herein” in line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 and 9-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-4, lines 1-5, 1-4 and 1-4, respectively, “the machine-readable instructions … is based on” should read “the machine-readable instructions … are based on”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claims 9-11, lines, 1-5, 1-4 and 1-4, respectively, “the instruction … is based on” should read “the instructions … are based on” because parent claim 8 does not disclose that the functions “evaluate sensor data”, “determine real-time vehicle emissions”, “record a first subset”, and “record a second subset” correspond with individual instructions included in the non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, lines 8-9, 6-7 and 5-6, respectively, the limitation “an emissions model selected from the vehicle template” appears to be new matter because there does not appear to be disclosure of selecting an emissions model from a vehicle template. Paragraphs 33, 47 and 49 disclose a vehicle template may contain emissions models, such that emissions-related data regarding the vehicle may be used to estimate the vehicle’s environmental impact, however, said paragraphs do not disclose selecting from the models, nor that the estimation of the vehicle’s environmental impact is the real-time vehicle emissions. Paragraph 54 discloses estimating emissions via models within the vehicle template, however, paragraph 54 also does not disclose selecting one of the models.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, lines 10-13, 8-10 and 7-9, respectively, the limitations “record[ing] a first subset of the real-time vehicle emissions” and “record[ing] a second subset of the real-time vehicle emissions” appear to be new matter because there does not appear to be disclosure of recording a subset of real-time vehicle emissions. Paragraphs 55-56 and figure 6 disclose recording a first and second subset of emissions-related data, however, paragraph 54 discloses the emissions-related data are obtained from sensors of the first vehicle. Paragraph 54 further discloses the information captured by the sensors can be used by a model to estimate emissions, therefore, the emissions-related data and real-time vehicle emissions appear to be different data.
Claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, the limitation “determine real-time vehicle emissions … based on an emissions model selected from the vehicle template applied to the sensor data” renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it is the emissions model or the vehicle template that is applied to the sensor data, therefore, it is unclear how the real-time vehicle emissions are determined. Paragraph 54 discloses a vehicle template specifies data that may be used to estimate emissions via models, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the emissions model is applied to the sensor data to determine the real-time vehicle emissions.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, lines 8-9, 6-7 and 5-6, respectively, the limitation “an emissions model selected from the vehicle template” renders each claim indefinite because, as discussed above, there does not appear to be disclosure of selecting an emissions model from a vehicle template, therefore, it is unclear how the emissions model selection is made (e.g., what criteria are considered). For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims are directed to determining real-time vehicle emissions based on an emissions model that merely comprises the vehicle template.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, lines 10-13, 8-10 and 7-9, respectively, the limitations “record[ing] a first subset of the real-time vehicle emissions” and “record[ing] a second subset of the real-time vehicle emissions” render each claim indefinite because, as discussed above, there does not appear to be disclosure of recording a subset of real-time vehicle emissions, therefore, it is unclear which data are recorded to update the vehicle and geographical records. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims are directed to recording subsets of emissions-related data to the vehicle and geographical records.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 16, lines 4, 4 and 3-4, respectively, the limitation “determin[e/ing] the real-time vehicle emissions is based on sensor observations of vehicle behavior” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the sensor observations are of the behavior of the first or second vehicle. Paragraph 46 discloses obtaining emissions-related data based on the behavior of another vehicle, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the real-time vehicle emissions are based on sensor observations of the second vehicle’s behavior.
Regarding claim 6, lines 1-3, the limitation “analyze one or more geographical records and one or more vehicle records” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the analysis includes the vehicle record and geographical record that are recorded to in claim 1, lines 11 and 14, respectively. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the records used for analysis in claim 6 include the records of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, lines 2-3, the limitation “utilizing one or more geographical records and one or more vehicle records” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the utilization includes the vehicle record and geographical record that are recorded to in claim 8, lines 8-9 and 11, respectively. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the records used for analysis in claim 13 include the records of claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, line 2, the limitation “analyzing one or more geographical records and one or more vehicle records” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the analysis includes the vehicle record and geographical record that are recorded to in claim 14, lines 8 and 10, respectively. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the records used for analysis in claim 19 include the records of claim 14.
Claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 and are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP § 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)-(c) Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the analysis. Claim 1 recites:
A system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory communicably coupled to the processor and storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to
evaluate sensor data from a first vehicle to determine a vehicle template corresponding to a second vehicle [mental process/step];
determine real-time vehicle emissions of the second vehicle based on an emissions model selected from the vehicle template applies to the sensor data [mental process/step];
record a first subset of the real-time vehicle emissions to update a vehicle record based on the vehicle template; and
record a second subset of the real-time vehicle emissions to update a geographical record based on a location of the first vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “evaluate sensor data … to determine a vehicle template…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying a pickup truck in an image and determining they should use pickup truck related emissions information. The limitation “determine real-time vehicle emissions … based on an emissions model…” in the context of this claim encompasses the person using received data to estimate the emissions of the truck, for example, by multiplying the kilometers the truck has traveled with its carbon dioxide emission weight per kilometer (e.g., see Nayak; para. 20). Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system, comprising:
a processor [generic computer component]; and
a memory communicably coupled to the processor and storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to [applying the abstract idea using a generic computer component]
evaluate sensor data from a first vehicle to determine a vehicle template corresponding to a second vehicle;
determine real-time vehicle emissions of the second vehicle based on an emissions model selected from the vehicle template applies to the sensor data;
record a first subset of the real-time vehicle emissions to updated a vehicle record based on the vehicle template [insignificant post-solution activity (storing data)]; and
record a second subset of the real-time vehicle emissions to update a geographical record based on a location of the first vehicle [insignificant post-solution activity (storing data)].
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “record a … subset of emissions-related data…”, the examiner submits that the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the record emissions-related data steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of storing emissions information), and amount to merely storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “processor” and “memory” is/are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing the generic computer function(s) of receiving, matching, and storing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and memory to “evaluate sensor data … to determine a vehicle template…” and “determine real-time vehicle emissions … based on an emissions model…” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner submits that the additional limitation(s) of “record a … subset of emissions-related data…” is/are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 except drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium and a method (i.e., a machine and process) which falls under one of the statutory categories in step 1. Therefore, claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under step 2 for the same reasons above.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejections of claim 1, 8 and 14.
Therefore, claims 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nayak et al. (US 2024/0212359), hereinafter Nayak.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, as best understood, Nayak discloses a system, comprising: a processor (Nayak; fig. 6: processor 801); and a memory communicably coupled to the processor and storing machine-readable instructions (Nayak; para. 72: memory 804 and/or the computer readable medium 805 may include a set of instructions that can be executed to cause the server 125 to perform any one or more of the methods or computer-based functions disclosed herein) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to evaluate sensor data from a first vehicle to determine a vehicle template corresponding to a second vehicle (Nayak; para. 60: emission estimation controller 121 applies the vehicle model module 213 (second model) to identify a vehicle make and/or vehicle model from the cropped image); determine real-time vehicle emissions of the second vehicle (Nayak; para. 27: probe data may be collected over time and include timestamps. In some examples, the probe data is collected at a predetermined time interval; para. 56: The steps of FIG. 5 may be repeated in whole or any combination for each … time interval; fig. 5: S213 & S217) based on an emissions model selected from the vehicle template applied to the sensor data (Nayak; para. 60: At act S211, the emission estimation controller 121 applies the vehicle model module 213 (second model) to identify a vehicle make and/or vehicle model from the cropped image … At act S113, the emission estimation controller 121 estimates emissions with a vehicle model emission coefficient table.; paras. 63-64: When the confidence value is less than the threshold value, the emission estimation controller 121 determines a vehicle structure for the at least one surrounding vehicle using the classification module 215. The vehicle structure may be a type of car (e.g., small car, mid-size car, sport utility vehicle, small truck, or large truck) … At act S217, the emission estimation controller 121 estimates emissions with a vehicle classification emission coefficient table (Table 2) based on the output of the vehicle classification module 215.); record a first subset of the real-time vehicle emissions to update a vehicle record based on the vehicle template (Nayak; para. 45: estimated emissions (a value for an estimated emission factor) may be … stored as emission data 231; para. 49: The estimated emissions (a value for an estimated emission factor) may be transmitted or stored as emission data 231. The calculations for the emission data, including the application of the vehicle quantity module 211, the vehicle model module 213, and/or the vehicle classification module 215 may be repeated for multiple vehicles in each image or for each road section 12. The emission data 231 may include values for multiple vehicles [i.e., the emission data record is updated when the emission data calculation is repeated for multiple vehicles or road sections] or may be the resultant value of the average of emission factors for multiple vehicles.); and record a second subset of the real-time vehicle emissions to update a geographical record based on a location of the first vehicle (Nayak; para. 53: emission estimation controller 121 sends the estimated emission value with corresponding location coordinates to a map developer device. At act S103, the map developer device stores the estimated emission value with the location coordinates or a road segment matched with the location coordinates).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 16, as best understood, Nayak discloses determining the real-time vehicle emissions is based on sensor observations of vehicle behavior (Nayak; para. 22: the collection vehicle 10 collects images at different locations along the road section 12. The collection vehicle 10 may … be passed by observed vehicles 13. The subset of the observed vehicles 13 changes as the collection vehicle 10 travels; para. 45: emission estimation controller 121 may access the vehicle model emission coefficient table 212 using the output of the vehicle model module 213 in order to estimate the emissions of the one or more surrounding vehicles depicted in the image data 103).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 17, as best understood, Nayak discloses the machine-readable instructions to determine the real-time vehicle emissions are based on evaluating sensor observations to determine which state of vehicle configuration the second vehicle is in (Nayak; para. 46: The vehicle classification module 215 is configured to determine a type of vehicle of the surrounding vehicles from the cropped image modified from the image data 203. The type of vehicle may be a classification of vehicle or a body style of the vehicle. Example body styles may include micro, sedan, hatchback, couple, roadster, limousine, sports car, sport utility vehicle, crossover, pickup, van, minivan, bus, camper, recreational vehicle, or any combination thereof.).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, as best understood, Nayak discloses the machine-readable instructions further include an instruction to analyze one or more geographical records and one or more vehicle records to estimate total vehicle emissions along a path involving multiple road segments (Nayak; paras. 53-54: the map developer device stores the estimated emission value with the location coordinates or a road segment matched with the location coordinates. At act S105, a request for a route is received at the map developer device … The emission estimation controller 121 may compare different routes between an origin location and a destination location. Each route may include a set of road segments or links that when combined, form a continuous route or path between the origin location and the destination location. The emission estimation controller 121 may add or otherwise calculated a total emission value for each of the routes using the set of road segments for the route.).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak in view of Abari (US 11,385,352).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 15, as best understood, Nayak discloses the first vehicle includes a lidar (Nayak; paras. 80-81: A connected vehicle includes a communication device and an environment sensor array for reporting the surroundings of the vehicle 124 to the server 125 … The sensor array may include one or more sensors configured to detect surroundings of the vehicle 124 … Example sensors include an optical distance system such as LiDAR 956).
Nayak does not explicitly disclose determining the real-time time vehicle emissions is based on sensor measurements of pollutants.
Abari, in the same field of endeavor (mobile pollution mapping), discloses determining real-time time vehicle emissions based on sensor measurements of pollutants (Abari; col. 2, ll. 46-57: a tunable LiDAR may include one or more lasers configured to measure a number density of various gases in the atmosphere for high resolution mapping of these gases. As an example, the existing LiDAR system may be modified to include at least two lasers that are positioned in very close proximity to each other that use at least two different wavelengths in order measure a number density of various gases (e.g., methane, water vapor, etc.). This LiDAR system may be “tunable,” or selectable for one or more of the various gases, which may be selected by the driver or passenger, or selected by the autonomous vehicle for mapping of these gases).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the lidar of Nayak to measure the pollution emitted on a route, as disclosed by Abari, with the motivation of sharing the information with vehicles in a fleet so that routing decisions for any particular vehicle may be updated based on the detection of particular trace gases or aerosol particles (e.g., pollution) on a particular day for a particular route (Abari; col. 3, ll. 41-45).
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak in view of Abari as applied to claims 2, 9 and 15 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (CN 1412541), hereinafter Zhao.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18, as best understood, Nayak, as modified, discloses the sensor measurements are adjusted based on signal absorption data (Abari; col. 2, l. 54 to col. 3, l. 9: This LiDAR system may be “tunable,” or selectable for one or more of the various gases, which may be selected by the driver or passenger, or selected by the autonomous vehicle for mapping of these gases … the wavelength associated with a first laser maybe tuned to an absorption band of the trace gas of interest (e.g., methane), while the wavelength associated with a second laser is tuned to a different wavelength (e.g., a wavelength that experiences much less absorption compared to the wavelength of the first laser). As an example and not by way of limitation, trace gases of interest include methane (CH.sub.4), water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2), nitrous oxide (N.sub.2O), and any other relevant trace gases that exist in the spectral band spanning from visible light (e.g., from about 390 nm to 700 nm) all the way to around 2000 nm.).
It is unclear if Nayak, as modified, explicitly discloses the signal absorption data are provided by the vehicle template.
However, Zhao, in the same field of endeavor (real-time vehicle emissions detection), discloses selecting a laser with an absorption rate that is suitable for measuring the exhaust emitted by vehicles combusting different fuels (Zhao; para. 30: Since the fuels used by motor vehicles in my country include gasoline, diesel, and natural gas, the components of the exhaust gas emitted by motor vehicles using different fuels will inevitably be different. Therefore, their absorption rates of lasers will also be different. Laser 2 includes three different lasers, each emitting lasers with different wavelengths. The switching on and off of the lasers is determined according to the different fuels used by the motor vehicle.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the selection of the gasses for which to tune the lidar system of Nayak, as modified, to be selected based on the absorption rate of the exhaust emitted by different vehicles combusting different fuels, as disclosed by Zhao, and to have stored, for each vehicle’s model, in the vehicle model information used by the emission estimation controller of Nayak, as modified, the fuel type, with the motivation of accurately measuring the types and quantities of exhaust emissions from vehicles, whether they are moving or stationary, within a very short time thereby allowing for real-time monitoring of vehicle exhaust emissions while significantly reducing testing time and manpower (Zhao; para. 5).
Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak in view of McClintock et al. (EP 3 165 892), hereinafter McClintock.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, as best understood, Nayak discloses the machine-readable instructions further include an instruction to analyze the total vehicle emissions along the path involving multiple road segments (Nayak; para. 54: emission data 231 for each of the road sections 12 making up the route may be added to calculate the total emission value).
Nayak does not explicitly disclose evaluating an extent that environmental impacts are dependent on a particular vehicle type.
McClintock, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle emissions monitoring), discloses evaluating an extent that environmental impacts are dependent on a particular vehicle type (McClintock; para. 25: System 10 is then additionally employed to perform data analysis on the collected data for particular vehicles, such as particular makes and models, relative to their regulatory standard. Such data analysis may include determining the various mean, mode and median, and various standard deviations, of particular pollutants that have been measured for a given population of analyzed vehicles by make and model.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have analyzed the pollutants emitted by a particular make and model of vehicle, as disclosed by McClintock, in the processor of Nayak, with the motivation informing an appropriate regulatory body upon detection of emissions levels of a particular make and model substantively deviating from the regulatory standards thereby enabling enforcement actions (McClintock; para. 25).
Supplemental References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kienitz et al. (US 2025/0046132), disclose ascertaining emissions with a mobile vehicle by identifying a type and model of a means of transport and determining its type and/or quantity of emissions produced during its operation using previously detected, measured, or ascertained knowledge of its emissions stored in memory, and adjusting the emission value based on operating parameters such speed.
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 JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights