Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on December 2, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show exterior cameras 102 in Figure 1A as described in the specification. Figure 1A shows six 102 references. Two appear to be interior cameras, on the backs of the seats. The front bumper 102 reference is not shown. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-8 and 10, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ge et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0397407 A1.
As to claim 1, Ge et al. discloses a vehicle, comprising:
an output device configured to communicate information to a driver of the vehicle (0042); and
a control system configured to:
receive first map data from a first source, the first map data including one or more first routes (0019);
supplement the first map data with supplemental mapping information (0047, 0051); and
display, via the output device, navigation directions according: (i) to the first map data and (ii) the supplemental mapping information (0056).
As to claim 2, Ge et al. discloses the vehicle of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first source comprises a remote server (0051, 0053).
As to claim 3, Ge et al. discloses the vehicle of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the control system is further configured to obtain the supplemental mapping information from second map data received from a second source (0051, 0052, Figure 2, server 204A).
As to claim 4, Ge et al. discloses the vehicle of claim 3, and further discloses wherein the second source comprises a remote server (0051, 0052, Figure 2, server 204A).
As to claim 5, Ge et al. discloses the vehicle of claim 3, and further discloses wherein the second source is local to the vehicle (0046, Figure 2, server 204B).
As to claim 6, Ge et al. discloses the vehicle of claim 3, and further discloses wherein the second map data includes one or more second routes (0035, 0041).
As to claim 7, Ge et al. discloses the vehicle of claim 6, and further discloses wherein the control system is further configured to:
determine (a) that at least one of the one or more first routes matches at least one of the one or more second routes (0056, 0100); and
in response to (a), determine the supplemental mapping information from the second map data (0056, 0100).
As to claim 8, Ge et al. discloses the vehicle of claim 7, and further discloses wherein the second map data includes a second estimated time of arrival, and the supplemental mapping information includes an updated estimated time of arrival based on the second estimated time of arrival (0026).
As to claim 10, Ge et al. discloses the vehicle of claim 7, and further discloses wherein the second map data includes one or more congestion labels for the one or more second routes, the supplemental mapping information being based on the one or more congestion labels (0044, 0070).
As to claim 15, Ge et al. discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a control system of a vehicle, at start point and an end point (0019);
receiving, from a first source and by the control system of the vehicle, first map data including one or more first routes between the start point and the end point (0019);
receiving, from a second source and by the control system of the vehicle, second map data (0047, 0051); and
displaying navigation directions according to: (i) the one or more first routes and (ii) supplemental mapping information derived from the second map data (0056).
As to claim 16, Ge et al. discloses the method of claim 15, and further discloses wherein the first source comprises a first remote server, and the second source comprises at least one of a source local to the vehicle and a second remote server (0046, 0051, 0052, Figure 2, server 204A, server 204B).
As to claim 17, Ge et al. discloses the method of claim 15, and further discloses wherein the second map data includes one or more second routes, and the method further comprises:
determining, by the control system, (a) that at least one of the one or more first routes matches at least one of the one or more second routes; and deriving, by the control system, the supplemental mapping information from the second map data in response to (a) (0056, 0100).
As to claim 19, Ge et al. discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the second map data includes one or more congestion labels for the one or more second routes, the supplemental mapping information being based on the one or more congestion labels (0044, 0070).
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.
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 9, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0397407 A1 in view of Han, U.S. Patent 9,043,143 B2 (2015).
As to claim 9, Ge et al. discloses the vehicle of claim 8. Ge et al. does not disclose a time of arrival, as claimed.
Han discloses wherein the first map data includes a first estimated time of arrival, and the updated estimated time of arrival is based on the first estimated time of arrival and the second estimated time of arrival (Column 3, Lines 23-49, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle of claim 8, as disclosed by Ge et al., with the use of the modified time of arrival, as disclosed by Han, with a reasonable expectation of success, evaluating the route based on additional information that impacts to route length and arrival time, allowing for routing decisions to minimize the route time.
As to claim 14, Ge et al. discloses the vehicle of claim 6. Ge et al. does not disclose a time of arrival, as claimed.
Han discloses wherein the one or more first routes include a plurality of first routes, and the one or more second routes include a plurality of second routes, the plurality of second routes each having a second estimated time of arrival associated therewith, the control system being configured to:
determine (a) that the plurality of first routes matches the plurality of second routes; and in response to (a), select a primary first route from the plurality of first routes according to the second estimated times of arrival of the plurality of second routes (Column 3, Lines 23-49, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle of claim 6, as disclosed by Ge et al., with the use of the modified time of arrival, as disclosed by Han, with a reasonable expectation of success, evaluating the route based on additional information that impacts to route length and arrival time, allowing for routing decisions to minimize the route time.
As to claim 18, Ge et al. discloses the method of claim 17. Ge et al. does not disclose a time of arrival, as claimed.
Han disclose calculating, by the control system, the supplemental mapping information as an updated estimated time of arrival based on: (i) a first estimated time of arrival included in the first map data and (ii) a second estimated time of arrival that is based on the first map data (Column 3, Lines 23-49, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of claim 17, as disclosed by Ge et al., with the use of the modified time of arrival, as disclosed by Han, with a reasonable expectation of success, evaluating the route based on additional information that impacts to route length and arrival time, allowing for routing decisions to minimize the route time.
Claims 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0397407 A1 in view of Peppelaar et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0140258 A1.
As to claim 11, Ge et al. discloses the vehicle of claim 7. Ge et al. does not disclose road surface properties, as claimed.
Peppelaar et al. discloses wherein the second map data includes one or more road surface properties for the one or more second routes, and the control system is further configured to calculate energy usage information for the at least one of the one or more first routes based on the one or more road surface properties, the supplemental mapping information including the energy usage information (0020, 0101).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle of claim 7, as disclosed by Ge et al., with the use of the road surface properties, as disclosed by Peppelaar et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, evaluating the route based on additional impacts of the road surface properties on fuel, indicating fuel usage on a rough road will decrease mileage, and the route may not be advised.
As to claim 12, Ge et al., as modified by Peppelaar et al., discloses the vehicle of claim 11. Peppelaar et al. further discloses wherein the energy usage information includes a driving range of the vehicle (0020).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle of claim 11, as disclosed by Ge et al., as modified by Peppelaar et al., with the use of the driving range, as disclosed by Peppelaar et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, evaluating the change in range that may restrict the route of the vehicle.
As to claim 13, Ge et al., as modified by Peppelaar et al., discloses the vehicle of claim 11.
Peppelaar et al. further discloses wherein the one or more road surface properties include a surface roughness (0020, 0101).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle of claim 11, as disclosed by Ge et al., as modified by Peppelaar et al., with the use of the road surface properties including surface roughness, as disclosed by Peppelaar et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, evaluating the route based on additional impacts of the road surface properties including roughness, on fuel, indicating fuel usage on a rough road will decrease mileage, and the route may not be advised.
As to claim 20, Ge et al. discloses the method of claim 17. Ge et al. does not disclose road surface properties, as claimed.
Peppelaar et al. discloses wherein the second map data includes one or more road surface properties for the one or more second routes, the method further comprising calculating energy usage information for the at least one of the one or more first routes based on the one or more road surface properties, the supplemental mapping information including the energy usage information (0020, 0101).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of claim 17, as disclosed by Ge et al., with the use of the road surface properties, as disclosed by Peppelaar et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, evaluating the route based on additional impacts of the road surface properties on fuel, indicating fuel usage on a rough road will decrease mileage, and the route may not be advised.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rahiah and Okunde are made of record as similar systems that utilize multiple sources of data for generating vehicle routes.
The present application publication is made of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
MICHAEL BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights