DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of election of Species A corresponding to claims 1-16 for prosecution on merits filed on 06/10/2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/10/2026
Therefore, Claims 1-16 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
4A. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim 1 is directed to an apparatus and claim 5 is directed to a method, which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 recite: receiving a scheduled driving route stored in a local storage within each of a plurality of adjacent vehicles from each of the plurality of adjacent vehicles, wherein the plurality of adjacent vehicles is adjacent to the vehicle having the navigation device; obtaining identical path matching percentage information about each of the plurality of adjacent vehicles based on the scheduled driving route;
receiving the latest map data stored in the local storage within an adjacent vehicle having the identical path matching percentage exceeding a first reference value; providing a benefit to an adjacent vehicle that transmits the latest map data.
These limitations can be performed in human mind. this is the method This step under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a mental process, more specifically, receiving a scheduled driving route stored in a local storage within each of a plurality of adjacent vehicles from each of the plurality of adjacent vehicles, wherein the plurality of adjacent vehicles is adjacent to the vehicle having the navigation device; obtaining identical path matching percentage information about each of the plurality of adjacent vehicles based on the scheduled driving route; receiving the latest map data stored in the local storage within an adjacent vehicle having the identical path matching percentage exceeding a first reference value; providing a benefit to an adjacent vehicle that transmits the latest map data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation a certain method of a concept performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), then it falls within the “mental process” calculating path. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claims recite navigation device which is processor recited only with a very high level of generality and nothing in the claims preclude the steps from being practically performed in the human mind.
Thus claim 1 recites a mental process (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). In particular, the claims only recite the steps of: receiving a scheduled driving route ….. from each of the plurality of adjacent vehicles, ……;
obtaining identical path matching percentage information about each of the plurality of adjacent vehicles ……..; receiving the latest map data ….. within an adjacent vehicle having the identical path ……. exceeding a first reference value; providing a benefit to an adjacent vehicle that transmits the latest map data.
The claim 1 recites navigation device which is processor recited only very high level of generality and it do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the vehicle to perform the steps of claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor/ device it cannot provide an inventive concept. And “providing a benefit to an adjacent vehicle” is a post solution activity.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. At least the data gathering/ generating by the sensor/computer recited in the claim are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (WURC).
The MPEP provides support that the additional limitations in the claim are directed to well-understood routine and conventional steps:
MPEP 2106.05(d) II recites:
II. ELEMENTS THAT THE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED AS WELL-UNDERSTOOD, ROUTINE, CONVENTIONAL ACTIVITY IN PARTICULAR FIELDS
Because examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, as elements that describe well-understood, routine activities, the following section provides examples of elements that have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields. It should be noted, however, that many of these examples failed to satisfy other Step 2B considerations (e.g., because they were recited at a high level of generality and thus were mere instructions to apply an exception, or were insignificant extra-solution activity). Thus, examiners should carefully analyze additional elements in a claim with respect to all relevant Step 2B considerations, including this consideration, before making a conclusion as to whether they amount to an inventive concept.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681,1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, on or with the use of generic computer components, or even without any computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim do not provide significantly more).
None of the dependent claims when taken separately or in combination with each dependent claim with parent claim overcomes the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible. Therefore, Claims 2-16 are also non-statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-16 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.
In claims 1,13 and 15, the recitation, “providing a benefit to an adjacent vehicle that transmits the latest map data”, renders it indefinite, since it is not clear what is the benefit it is providing to an adjacent vehicle. Specification is also silent about it.
Dependent claims 2-12,14 and 16 inherit the deficiencies of independent claim 1 are rejected under 35 USC 112 (a) as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-3, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (JP-7115282B2) ( Since inventor unknown, therefore, hereinafter “JP-5282”) in view of Fechtel et al. ( KR-20200015508A).
As Per Claim 1, JP-7115282 (Hereinafter ,”JP-5282”) teaches, a method for downloading latest map data, the method being performed by a navigation device of a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving a scheduled driving route stored in a local storage within each of a plurality of adjacent vehicles from each of the plurality of adjacent vehicles, wherein the plurality of adjacent vehicles is adjacent to the vehicle having the navigation device ( via unit receiving the driving route, determining whether or not there are two or more adjacent vehicles from among the plurality of vehicles that have the same estimated travel time or estimated arrival time in an area where the scheduled travel route overlaps, See Page 13, 9th – 13th paragraph, Page 15, 11th-13th paragraph, Figs. 1-4) also see , Page 2, last para, Page 3, 5th para, Page 5, whole page).
However, “JP-5282” does not explicitly teach, downloading latest map data,,
obtaining identical path matching percentage information about each of the plurality of adjacent vehicles based on the scheduled driving route; receiving the latest map data stored in the local storage within an adjacent vehicle having the identical path matching percentage exceeding a first reference value; and providing a benefit to an adjacent vehicle that transmits the latest map data.
Examiner Interprets : “benefit” as ‘communication’.
In an analogous art, Fechtel et al. ( Fechtel) teaches, V2X communication using multiple Radio Access Technologies (Multiple RATs) wherein, obtaining identical path matching percentage information about each of the plurality of adjacent vehicles based on the scheduled driving route; receiving the latest map data stored in the local storage within an adjacent vehicle having the identical path matching percentage exceeding a first reference value; and providing a benefit to an adjacent vehicle that transmits the latest map data ( via “downloading a local navigation map. In this case, the area map download can be initiated via cellular transmission from the network to the vehicle, and the map update /download can then be switched to vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) mode, eg, The updated / downloaded information can be communicated from one vehicle to another vehicle (or between the base station and the vehicle using a Wi-Fi communication link)”, Page 71, 4th paragraph, Figs. 3, 26 and 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of “JP-5282” and Fechtel before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of JP5282 , to include the teachings (Systems, devices, and techniques for V2X communications using multiple radio access technologies (RATs)) of Fechtel and configure with the system of JP5282 in order to map update /download by switching vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) mode. The updated / downloaded information can be communicated from one vehicle to another vehicle (or between the base station and the vehicle using a Wi-Fi communication link). Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to download map and communicate with other adjacent vehicles in the surrounding area.
As per Claim 2, JP5282 as modified by Fechtel teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, JP5282 in view of Fechtel teaches, wherein the plurality of adjacent vehicles includes a plurality of adjacent vehicles configured to be connected to the vehicle having the navigation device via short-range communication. ( JP5282: See Fig.1, Fechtel : Page 8, 3rd and 4th para).
As per Claim 3, JP5282 as modified by Fechtel teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, JP5282 in view of Fechtel teaches, wherein receiving the scheduled driving route from each of the plurality of adjacent vehicles includes: connecting to each of the plurality of adjacent vehicles via short-range communication; and receiving the scheduled driving route based on a final destination of each of the plurality of adjacent vehicles connected to the vehicle via the short-range communication, wherein the final destination of each of the plurality of adjacent vehicles is close to a final destination of the vehicle having the navigation device. (JP5282: via unit receiving the driving route, determining whether or not there are two or more adjacent vehicles from among the plurality of vehicles that have the same estimated travel time or estimated arrival time in an area where the scheduled travel route overlaps, See Page 13, 9th – 13th paragraph, Page 15, 11th-13th paragraph, Figs. 1-4) also see , Page 2, last para, Page 3, 5th para, Page 5, whole page).
As per Claim 13, JP5282 as modified by Fechtel teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, JP5282 in view of Fechtel teaches, wherein providing the benefit to the adjacent vehicle that transmits the latest map data includes determining the benefit to be provided to the adjacent vehicle, based on a number of movement route changes of the adjacent vehicle that transmits the latest map data ( Fechtel : via “downloading a local navigation map. In this case, the area map download can be initiated via cellular transmission from the network to the vehicle, and the map update /download can then be switched to vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) mode, eg, The updated / downloaded information can be communicated from one vehicle to another vehicle (or between the base station and the vehicle using a Wi-Fi communication link)”, Page 71, 4th paragraph, Figs. 3, 26 and 32). (See rationale supporting obviousness and motivation to combine, of claim 1 above).
As per Claim 15, JP5282 as modified by Fechtel teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, JP5282 in view of Fechtel teaches, wherein providing the benefit to the adjacent vehicle that transmits the latest map data includes determining a benefit to be provided to the adjacent vehicle, based on a capacity of the latest map data having been transmitted from the adjacent vehicle. (Fechtel : Page 41, 4th para). (See rationale supporting obviousness and motivation to combine, of claim 1 above).
As per Claim 16, JP5282 as modified by Fechtel teaches the limitation of Claim 15. However, JP5282 in view of Fechtel teaches, determining the capacity of the latest map data having been transmitted from the adjacent vehicle based on an amount of the latest map data having been received by the vehicle from the adjacent vehicle. (Fechtel : page 21, 2nd para). (see rationale supporting obviousness and motivation to combine, of claim 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 4-12 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable when 112 (b) rejection has been overcome and when rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights