DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 10/23/2024 and 03/03/2025 have been received and considered.
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 1-4, 6-18, and 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
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 20, these claims recite, when considered individually or as a whole, a method, system, and medium for adjusting a map. Therefore, claims 1, 16, and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprises:
receiving, at a computing system and from one or more sensors on a first vehicle, weather information comprising a first location and a first time;
adjusting a map to convey the weather information at the first location;
and providing the map to a second vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and/or “by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, “adjusting a map to convey the weather information at the first location” includes a human operator manually annotating a map with information regarding the weather conditions. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method comprises:
receiving, at a computing system and from one or more sensors on a first vehicle, weather information comprising a first location and a first time;
adjusting a map to convey the weather information at the first location;
and providing the map to a second vehicle.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving, at a computing system and from one or more sensors on a first vehicle, weather information comprising a first location and a first time” and “providing the map to a second vehicle,” these limitations recite mere data gathering and data transmission that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, 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 limitations do 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 elements amount to nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity.
Therefore, the additional limitations are not a “practical application.” Additionally, it is not “something more” because the limitations include a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d), and Breed et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0197248 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
101 Analysis – Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2 and 17, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims further define the abstract idea by further specifying characteristics of the computing system and vehicles.
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Breed et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0197248 A1 and Stenneth et al., U.S. Patent No. 9355560 B2.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, this claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. This claim further defines the abstract idea by reciting a mental determination that can be completed by a human to determine if a map contains information. The claim also recites obtaining information from memory, which is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Breed et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0197248 A1.
Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 4, 8, and 13, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims further define the abstract idea by specifying further adjustments and updates that can be performed by a human. For example, a human can annotate a map with weather information using pen and paper after mentally determining that the map does not contain the information or after mentally confirming the information is accurate. A human can also manually update a database of information and adjust a map based on the database.
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Breed et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0197248 A1, Fiorucci et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0294431 A1, and Breed, U.S. Patent No. 9518830 B1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 6, 9-12, 14-15, and 18, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims further define the abstract idea by specifying further mental determinations and information updates that can be performed by a human. The claims also recite data gathering and data transmission that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Breed et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0197248 A1, Fiorucci et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0294431 A1, Breed, U.S. Patent No. 9518830 B1, and Verheyen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0285656 A1.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, this claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. This claim recites further data gathering and data transmission that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Breed et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0197248 A1.
Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 11, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Breed et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0197248 A1 (hereinafter Breed).
Regarding claim 1, Breed discloses a method (Breed Fig. 26) comprises:
receiving, at a computing system and from one or more sensors on a first vehicle, weather information comprising a first location and a first time (see at least Breed [0276]: “With respect to weather monitoring, an arrangement for monitoring weather includes a sensor system arranged in each vehicle for obtaining information about the weather in the vicinity of the vehicle, which would most likely, but necessarily, be different sensors than those used to monitor the road condition. The communication system would therefore transmit weather information to the control station and the transmission system would transmit weather conditions in an area in which the vehicles travel based on the information obtained by the vehicles.”; [0332]: “Each vehicle would have a characteristic time indicating the freshness of the information in its local map database.”);
adjusting a map to convey the weather information at the first location (see at least Breed [0276]: “A weather map could be determined at the control station based on the input from the vehicles as well as other inputs, e.g., from infrastructure-based weather sensors, discussed elsewhere herein. Preferably, the weather information provided by the vehicles is associated with the position of the vehicles, determined for example by positioning systems on the vehicles, to improve the accuracy of the weather map.”; [0275]: “Thus, a vehicle would receive information about the condition of a road in front of it and which it is about to travel over. The information may also be associated with maps or map updates which are transmitted to the vehicles.”);
and providing the map to a second vehicle (see at least Breed [0276]: “A weather map could be determined at the control station based on the input from the vehicles as well as other inputs, e.g., from infrastructure-based weather sensors, discussed elsewhere herein. Preferably, the weather information provided by the vehicles is associated with the position of the vehicles, determined for example by positioning systems on the vehicles, to improve the accuracy of the weather map. The transmission system may be arranged to transmit specific weather conditions to vehicles based on the position of the vehicles.”; [0275]: “Thus, a vehicle would receive information about the condition of a road in front of it and which it is about to travel over. The information may also be associated with maps or map updates which are transmitted to the vehicles.”).
Regarding claim 2, Breed discloses the method of claim 1, wherein
the computing system is positioned remotely from the first vehicle and the second vehicle (see at least Breed [0273]: “The arrangement further includes a communication system 234 arranged in each vehicle 230 and coupled to the sensor system 232 therein for communicating the obtained information to a control station 236, e.g., via the Internet.”; Breed Fig. 29 shows control station is separate from the first and second vehicles).
Regarding claim 3, Breed discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
loading the map from a memory corresponding to the computing system (see at least Breed [0581]: “As such, the monitoring system 190 may monitor weather conditions around the road, visibility for operators of the vehicles on the road, traffic on the road, accidents on the road, emergency situations of vehicles on the road and/or the speed of vehicles travelling on the road and a distance between adjacent vehicles. The control system 192 may be coupled to or integrated with a map database containing a predetermined speed limit for the road under normal travel conditions, and thus would determine a change in this predetermined speed limit based on the monitored conditions.”; [0276]: “A weather map could be determined at the control station based on the input from the vehicles as well as other inputs, e.g., from infrastructure-based weather sensors, discussed elsewhere herein.”);
and determining whether the map conveys the weather information at the first location (see at least Breed [0416]: “The data facility 300 can also be programmed to automatically access data channels on a regular basis to obtain current information about roads and weather. Although the data facility 300 gathers a large amount of information, not all of the information will be directed to the vehicle 294, i.e., only potential relevant information will be considered for each vehicle 294 in communication with the data facility 300.”; [0276]: “A weather map could be determined at the control station based on the input from the vehicles as well as other inputs, e.g., from infrastructure-based weather sensors, discussed elsewhere herein…The transmission system may be arranged to transmit specific weather conditions to vehicles based on the position of the vehicles.).
Regarding claim 4, Breed discloses the method of claim 3, wherein adjusting the map to convey the weather information for the first location comprises:
adjusting the map to convey the weather information at the first location based on determining the map lacks the weather information for the first location (see at least Breed [0332]: “Each vehicle would have a characteristic time indicating the freshness of the information in its local map database. As the vehicle travels and communicates with other vehicles, this date can be readily exchanged and if a particular vehicle has a later map version than the other vehicle, it would signal the first vehicle requesting that the differences between the two map databases be transmitted from the first to the second vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 5, Breed discloses the method of claim 1, wherein
the first vehicle is autonomously navigating at the first location (see at least Breed [0120]: “It is contemplated that there will be a display for various map information which will always be in view for the passenger and for the driver at least when the vehicle is operating under automatic control.”).
Regarding claim 6, Breed discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the second vehicle is navigating a route within a predefined radius of the first location; and wherein providing the map to the second vehicle comprises: providing the map to the second vehicle based on determining that the second vehicle is navigating the route within the predefined radius of the first location (see at least Breed [0275]-[0276]: “A positioning system 239 may be arranged on each vehicle to determine its position. In this case, the communication system 234 transmits the position of each vehicle 230 along with the obtained information. As such, the transmission system 238 may be controlled to transmit information to vehicles based on their position relative to the position of the maintenance issue with the travel lane so that the vehicles receive only pertinent information. Thus, a vehicle would receive information about the condition of a road in front of it and which it is about to travel over…The transmission system may be arranged to transmit specific weather conditions to vehicles based on the position of the vehicles.”; [0415]: “It is important to note that the host vehicle can also be a probe vehicle, in that information it obtains can be used for transmission to vehicles behind it on the same path, and that a probe vehicle can be a host vehicle in that information it receives was obtained by vehicle in front of it on the same path.”).
Regarding claim 7, Breed discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the weather information for the first location comprises:
receiving images depicting an environment at the first location from the first vehicle (see at least Breed [0274]: “The information obtained by the sensor systems 232 may be derived form the pictures or obtained from other sensors. In the former case, the derived information may be transmitted along with the pictures themselves. The information about the maintenance state of the travel lane includes the presence of potholes in the travel lane, icing of the travel lane, and/or the presence of objects on the travel lane.”).
Regarding claim 11, Breed discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from one or more sensors on a third vehicle, second weather information comprising the first location and a second time (see at least Breed [0349]: “In general, information provided to the transmitters for transmission to the vehicle operators can be weather information…generated by probe vehicles. Probe vehicles are generally those vehicles which precede the host vehicle in time along the same highway or in the same area.”; [0324]: “Since there may be as many as 100 to 1000 vehicles simultaneously transmitting within radio range of the receiving vehicle, a transmitting vehicle must have a code which can be known before hand to the receiving vehicle.”);
and wherein adjusting the map to convey the weather information at the first location comprises: adjusting the map to convey the weather information at the first location based on receiving the weather information and the second weather information (see at least Breed [0372]: “Each probe vehicle would communicate information, such as the existence of a new construction zone, a patch of ice, fog or other visibility conditions, an accident or any other relevant information, to a central source which would monitor all such transmissions and issue a temporary map update to all vehicles in the vicinity over the Internet, or equivalent.”; [0418]: “If a temporary map update is created based on a change in the operability or functionality of a road, e.g., based on a traffic accident, the data facility 300 is programmed to continuously monitor the change to determine when the use of the road reverts to a state preceding the change. When this happens, notification of this reversion is transmitted to the host vehicle, e.g., via another map update.”).
Regarding claim 15, Breed discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from the second vehicle or a third vehicle, additional weather information corresponding to the first location at a second time (see at least Breed [0349]: “In general, information provided to the transmitters for transmission to the vehicle operators can be weather information…generated by probe vehicles. Probe vehicles are generally those vehicles which precede the host vehicle in time along the same highway or in the same area.”);
based on the additional weather information, adjusting the map to remove the weather information and include the additional weather information (see at least Breed [0372]: “Each probe vehicle would communicate information, such as the existence of a new construction zone, a patch of ice, fog or other visibility conditions, an accident or any other relevant information, to a central source which would monitor all such transmissions and issue a temporary map update to all vehicles in the vicinity over the Internet, or equivalent.”; [0418]: “If a temporary map update is created based on a change in the operability or functionality of a road, e.g., based on a traffic accident, the data facility 300 is programmed to continuously monitor the change to determine when the use of the road reverts to a state preceding the change. When this happens, notification of this reversion is transmitted to the host vehicle, e.g., via another map update.”);
and providing the map to at least a fourth vehicle (see at least Breed [0155]: “A processor on the vehicle receives the signals, analyzes it and determines whether its map includes the latest updated map information for the segment in which the vehicle is presently located. If not, an update for the vehicle's map information is downloaded via the transmitter. This embodiment is particularly advantageous when the transmitter is arranged before a section of road and thus provides vehicles entering the road and in range of the transmitter with the map data they will subsequently need.”; [0372]: “Each probe vehicle would communicate information, such as the existence of a new construction zone, a patch of ice, fog or other visibility conditions, an accident or any other relevant information, to a central source which would monitor all such transmissions and issue a temporary map update to all vehicles in the vicinity over the Internet, or equivalent.”; [0324]: “Since there may be as many as 100 to 1000 vehicles simultaneously transmitting within radio range of the receiving vehicle, a transmitting vehicle must have a code which can be known before hand to the receiving vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 1. Breed also discloses a system for performing the method of claim 1 as explained above. Specifically, Breed discloses the presence of a vehicle having sensors (Breed [0272]) and a computing device (Breed [0031]). Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 5 as explained above. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites a medium that performs the method of claim 1. Breed also discloses a medium (Breed [0205], [0485]) for performing the method of claim 1 as explained above. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed in view of Fiorucci et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0294431 A1 (hereinafter Fiorucci).
Regarding claim 8, Breed discloses the method of claim 1 as explained above. Breed fails to expressly disclose a time-ordered database of information. However, Fiorucci teaches
updating, based on the first time corresponding to the weather information, a time-ordered database of information; and wherein adjusting the map to convey the weather information at the first location comprises: adjusting the map based on updating the time-ordered database of information (This limitation is taught through the combination of Breed and Fiorucci. Breed discloses updating, based on the first time corresponding to the weather information, a database of information and wherein adjusting the map to convey the weather information at the first location comprises adjusting the map based on updating the database of information (see at least Breed [0345]: “The vehicle thereafter would check on a section-by-section basis whether it had the latest update information for the particular and surrounding locations where it is being operated. One method of verifying this information would be achieved if a satellite or Internet connection periodically broadcasts the latest date and time or version that each segment had been most recently updated.”; [0372]: “Each probe vehicle would communicate information, such as the existence of a new construction zone, a patch of ice, fog or other visibility conditions, an accident or any other relevant information, to a central source which would monitor all such transmissions and issue a temporary map update to all vehicles in the vicinity over the Internet, or equivalent.”). Breed fails to expressly disclose a time-ordered database of information. However, Fiorucci teaches a time-ordered database of information (see at least Fiorucci [0264]: “The concept of “logging” can be related to the sequential recording in a file or a database of all the events affecting a particular process (application, activity of device or a computer network). The log file of events is the file containing these records. Generally dated and classified in chronological order, it allows for analyzing step by step the internal activity of the kiosk processes and its interactions with its environment.”). Therefore, the combination of Breed and Fiorucci teach the entirety of this limitation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Breed with the time-ordered database taught by Fiorucci with reasonable expectation of success. Fiorucci is directed towards the related field of managing and allocating resources using a sensor network. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Breed with Fiorucci to improve resource utilization efficiency (see at least Fiorucci [0003]: “In view of the above, new apparatus and methods are needed which to help more efficiently utilize resources in urban environments.”).
Regarding claim 9, Breed in view of Fiorucci teach all elements of the method according to claim 8 as explained above. Breed discloses the method further comprising:
receiving, from a third vehicle, second weather information comprising the first location and a second time (see at least Breed [0349]: “In general, information provided to the transmitters for transmission to the vehicle operators can be weather information…generated by probe vehicles. Probe vehicles are generally those vehicles which precede the host vehicle in time along the same highway or in the same area.”; [0324]: “Since there may be as many as 100 to 1000 vehicles simultaneously transmitting within radio range of the receiving vehicle, a transmitting vehicle must have a code which can be known before hand to the receiving vehicle.”);
updating the time-ordered database of information to remove the weather information and include the second weather information; and adjusting the map to convey the second weather information at the first location based on updating the time-ordered database of information (see at least Breed [0372]: “Each probe vehicle would communicate information, such as the existence of a new construction zone, a patch of ice, fog or other visibility conditions, an accident or any other relevant information, to a central source which would monitor all such transmissions and issue a temporary map update to all vehicles in the vicinity over the Internet, or equivalent.”; [0418]: “If a temporary map update is created based on a change in the operability or functionality of a road, e.g., based on a traffic accident, the data facility 300 is programmed to continuously monitor the change to determine when the use of the road reverts to a state preceding the change. When this happens, notification of this reversion is transmitted to the host vehicle, e.g., via another map update.”; where Fiorucci [0264] teaches a time-ordered database of information).
Claims 10, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed in view of Breed, U.S. Patent No. 9518830 B1 (hereinafter Breed 2).
Regarding claim 10, Breed discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving sensor data from the first vehicle (see at least Breed [0276]: “With respect to weather monitoring, an arrangement for monitoring weather includes a sensor system arranged in each vehicle for obtaining information about the weather in the vicinity of the vehicle, which would most likely, but necessarily, be different sensors than those used to monitor the road condition. The communication system would therefore transmit weather information to the control station and the transmission system would transmit weather conditions in an area in which the vehicles travel based on the information obtained by the vehicles.”)
Breed fails to expressly disclose validating the weather information based on the received sensor data. However, Breed 2 teaches
and validating the weather information based on the sensor data received from the first vehicle (see at least Breed 2 Col. 12, lines 47-53: “Referring last to FIG. 6, the temporary nature of the displayed message or icon indicative of an object or condition on the map being displayed by the vehicular navigation system is enabled by the ability to have a vehicle, that passes by the location at which the object or condition is detected, confirm the continued presence of the object or ascertain lack of the object or condition at the expected location.”; Col. 11, lines 23-29: “As used herein, an object or condition will generally include objects, such as an animal, a disabled vehicle, a vehicle traveling the wrong way, and conditions such as an accident, black ice, construction, police radar, a landslide, pot holes, rough road, smoke, low visibility, fog, snow, heavy rain, congestion, and the like.”; see also Breed 2 claim 2 and claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Breed with the validation taught by Breed 2 with reasonable expectation of success. Breed 2 is directed towards the related field of temporarily updating a vehicle map. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Breed with Breed 2 to improve map information without requiring manual entry (see at least Breed 2 Col. 3, lines 14-25: “It is an object of the present invention to provide systems and methods that temporarily place on a map being displayed by a vehicular navigation system, the existence of a potentially dangerous movable object in the path of travel of the vehicle, such as an animal, disabled car, black ice, boulder etc. Accordingly, a vehicular navigation system updating system in accordance with the invention includes at least one condition detector that automatically detects presence of an object or condition at a specific location and that affects movement of vehicles on a roadway without requiring manual entry of data about the object or condition.”).
Regarding claim 12, Breed discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
deploying a third vehicle to the first location (see at least Breed [0372]: “Each probe vehicle would communicate information, such as the existence of a new construction zone, a patch of ice, fog or other visibility conditions, an accident or any other relevant information, to a central source which would monitor all such transmissions and issue a temporary map update to all vehicles in the vicinity over the Internet, or equivalent…Each passing vehicle, for example, could be instructed by the central control station to photograph and send the picture to the central control station so that it would know when the accident has been cleared.”; [0324]: “Since there may be as many as 100 to 1000 vehicles simultaneously transmitting within radio range of the receiving vehicle, a transmitting vehicle must have a code which can be known before hand to the receiving vehicle.”);
receiving, from the third vehicle, additional weather information corresponding to first location at a second time (see at least Breed [0349]: “In general, information provided to the transmitters for transmission to the vehicle operators can be weather information…generated by probe vehicles. Probe vehicles are generally those vehicles which precede the host vehicle in time along the same highway or in the same area.”; [0324]: “Since there may be as many as 100 to 1000 vehicles simultaneously transmitting within radio range of the receiving vehicle, a transmitting vehicle must have a code which can be known before hand to the receiving vehicle.”);
Breed fails to expressly disclose validating the weather information based on additional information. However, Breed 2 teaches
and validating the weather information based on the additional weather information (see at least Breed 2 Col. 12, lines 47-53: “Referring last to FIG. 6, the temporary nature of the displayed message or icon indicative of an object or condition on the map being displayed by the vehicular navigation system is enabled by the ability to have a vehicle, that passes by the location at which the object or condition is detected, confirm the continued presence of the object or ascertain lack of the object or condition at the expected location.”; Col. 11, lines 23-29: “As used herein, an object or condition will generally include objects, such as an animal, a disabled vehicle, a vehicle traveling the wrong way, and conditions such as an accident, black ice, construction, police radar, a landslide, pot holes, rough road, smoke, low visibility, fog, snow, heavy rain, congestion, and the like.”; see also Breed 2 claim 2 and claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Breed with the validation taught by Breed 2 with reasonable expectation of success. Breed 2 is directed towards the related field of temporarily updating a vehicle map. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Breed with Breed 2 to improve map information without requiring manual entry (see at least Breed 2 Col. 3, lines 14-25: “It is an object of the present invention to provide systems and methods that temporarily place on a map being displayed by a vehicular navigation system, the existence of a potentially dangerous movable object in the path of travel of the vehicle, such as an animal, disabled car, black ice, boulder etc. Accordingly, a vehicular navigation system updating system in accordance with the invention includes at least one condition detector that automatically detects presence of an object or condition at a specific location and that affects movement of vehicles on a roadway without requiring manual entry of data about the object or condition.”).
Regarding claim 13, Breed in view of Breed 2 teach all elements of the method according to claim 12 as explained above. Breed 2 further teaches wherein adjusting the map to convey the weather information at the first location comprises:
adjusting the map to convey the weather information at the first location based on validating the weather information (see at least Breed 2 Col. 10, lines 50-57: “In step 54, a map update 58 is determined at the remote site 18 based on the presence of the determined object or condition…The map update 58 is then broadcast in step 56 under conditions and in accordance with industry specifications that enable reception of the map update 58 by vehicles that may travel on the roadway associated with the condition.”; Col. 11, lines 23-29: “As used herein, an object or condition will generally include objects, such as an animal, a disabled vehicle, a vehicle traveling the wrong way, and conditions such as an accident, black ice, construction, police radar, a landslide, pot holes, rough road, smoke, low visibility, fog, snow, heavy rain, congestion, and the like.”; see also Breed 2 claim 2 and claim 5).
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 7 and claim 10 as explained above. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 7 and claim 10.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed in view of Verheyen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0285656 A1 (hereinafter Verheyen).
Regarding claim 14, Breed discloses the method of claim 1 as explained above. Breed fails to expressly disclose validating weather information based on a review performed by an operator. However, Verheyen teaches the method further comprising:
based on receiving the weather information, validating the weather information based on a review performed by an operator (see at least Verheyen [0064]: “At least in some embodiments, the alterations 150 may first be manually checked and validated by one or more editors 155 before they are applied to the geographic database 152.”; Verheyen [0040] teaches the editors are human operators; this limitation is taught through the combination of Verheyen and Breed, where Breed [0276] discloses the information is weather information);
and wherein adjusting the map to convey the weather information at the first location comprises: adjusting the map to convey the weather information at the first location based on validating the weather information (see at least Verheyen [0064]: “At least in some embodiments, the alterations 150 may first be manually checked and validated by one or more editors 155 before they are applied to the geographic database 152…If the alteration 150 is determined to be correct, then the geographic database 152 is appropriately updated.”; [0007]: “Once a change request has been validated, i.e. the change indicated in the message has been manually determined to be correct, then the digital map can be updated accordingly.”; this limitation is taught through the combination of Verheyen and Breed, where Breed [0276] discloses the map and information is weather information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Breed with the validation taught by Verheyen with reasonable expectation of success. Verheyen is directed towards the related field of updating digital maps representing a transportation network. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Breed with Verheyen to reduce difficulty for determining trajectory and traffic flow (see at least Verheyen [0010]-[0011]: “It has been recognised, however, that with the amount of traffic flow data that is now received for a given navigable segment or intersection, changes in traffic that may occur on a given road segment or intersection may be difficult to determine…In view of the foregoing, there is a need for improved methods and systems for determining trajectories through an area over one or more junctions for display from trace data.”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed in view of Stenneth et al., U.S. Patent No. 9355560 B2 (hereinafter Stenneth).
Regarding claim 17, Breed discloses the system of claim 16 as explained above. Breed fails to expressly disclose a fleet of vehicles. However, Stenneth teaches
wherein the first vehicle and the second vehicle are associated with a fleet of vehicles (see at least Stenneth Col. 4, lines 34-37: “In some embodiments, the probe source is selected from the group consisting of probe vehicles (e.g., fleet and/or non-fleet vehicles), commuters, and combinations thereof.”),
and wherein the computing device is configured to manage one or more maps for the fleet of vehicles (This limitation is taught through the combination of Breed and Stenneth. Breed discloses the computing device is configured to manage one or more maps for a plurality of vehicles (see at least Breed [0276]: “The communication system would therefore transmit weather information to the control station and the transmission system would transmit weather conditions in an area in which the vehicles travel based on the information obtained by the vehicles. A weather map could be determined at the control station based on the input from the vehicles as well as other inputs, e.g., from infrastructure-based weather sensors, discussed elsewhere herein. Preferably, the weather information provided by the vehicles is associated with the position of the vehicles, determined for example by positioning systems on the vehicles, to improve the accuracy of the weather map. The transmission system may be arranged to transmit specific weather conditions to vehicles based on the position of the vehicles.”). Breed fails to expressly disclose a fleet of vehicles. However, Stenneth Col. 4, lines 34-37 teaches vehicles can be in a fleet. Therefore, the combination of Breed and Stenneth teach the entirety of this limitation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Breed with the vehicle fleet taught by Stenneth with reasonable expectation of success. Stenneth is directed towards the related field of differentiating high quality probe reports. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Breed with Stenneth to improve probe report quality (see at least Stenneth Col. 2, lines 37-44: “A vehicular traffic system may receive a great multitude (e.g., billions) of probe reports each month—some of which may not be useful (and, indeed, may be detrimental) to the modeling and estimation performed by the vehicular traffic system. By way of example, probe reports received from commuters traveling on boats or trains may reduce the quality of a vehicular traffic system or other type of road property estimation system that uses such probe reports.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ricci, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0158821 A1, directed towards updating a map based on vehicle data collection.
Aben et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0118965 A1, directed towards presenting navigation information based on real-time information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662