CTNF 18/980,693 CTNF 96323 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/980,693 filed on 12/13/2024. Claims 1-28 are currently pending and have been examined. This action is made NON-FINAL. The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Jeffrey Chalhoub. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 5 th , 2025 and April 27 th , 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more. The claims are being rejected according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 50-57 (January 7, 2019). Step One : Does the Claim Fall Within a Statutory Category? Yes . Claim 1 is directed towards a mapping server (machine). Dependent claims 2-16 and 21-25 are also directed towards a mapping server (machine). Claim 17 is directed towards a method (process). Claim 18 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium (machine). Claim 19 is directed towards a navigation system (machine). Dependent claims 20-26 are also directed towards a navigation system (machine). Claim 27 is directed towards a method (process). Finally, claim 28 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium (machine). Step Two A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? Yes . Taking into account claim 1 as one example, the claim recites receiving drive information collected from a plurality of vehicles that traversed a road segment, the drive information comprising an indication of a first speed-affecting landmark and a second speed-affecting landmark , determining a speed segment, as a subsection of the road segment, based on the first speed-affecting landmark and the second speed-affecting landmark, wherein the drive information received from each of the plurality of vehicles further includes one or more indicators of vehicle speed within the speed segment , determining, based on the one or more indicators of vehicle speed included in the drive information received from each of the plurality of vehicles, at least one aggregated common speed profile for the speed segment , storing the at least one aggregated common speed profile in an autonomous vehicle road navigation model associated with the speed segment , and distributing the autonomous vehicle road navigation model to one or more autonomous vehicles for use in navigating along the speed segment. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses an individual analyzing a path, noticing a vehicle traversing the path, identifying a speed limit of the path, and providing driving instructions to a driver of the vehicle to traverse the path in order to remain below the speed limit. Thus, the claim recites a mental process . Step Two A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? No . Claim 1 recites two additional elements – a processor and a memory. Both elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor and memory. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 19 recites three additional elements – a processor, a memory, and a server. All three elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor, memory, and server. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 27-28 recite one additional element – a server. The server is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a means to transmit and receive data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic server. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This type of abstract idea recited in claims 1-28 is a mental process . Step Two B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept No . Regarding claim 1 , the claim 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 elements of using a processor and a memory amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor and memory. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a processor and a memory cannot provide an inventive concept. Regarding claim 19 , the claim 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 elements of using a processor, a memory, and a server amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor, memory, and server. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a processor, a memory, and a server cannot provide an inventive concept. Regarding claims 27-29 , the claims do 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 a server amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic server. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a server cannot provide an inventive concept. Dependent Claims The dependent claims are merely further defining the abstract idea by providing field of use limitations on transmitting and receiving data and are not adding anything to the abstract idea set forth in the independent claims such that the invention will amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-16 and 20-26 and are merely field of use limitations which simply further limit the abstract idea set forth in claims 1 and 19 , respectively. These claims do not contain further limitations that make them subject matter eligible. For example, dependent claim 4 merely recites the well understood, routine and conventional computing functions of data transmission and gathering. These claims do not contain further limitations that make them subject matter eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Heilbron ( WO 2022149049 A2 ). Regarding Claim 1: Heilbron teaches: A mapping server for generating map information relative to a road segment, the mapping server comprising: at least one processor comprising circuitry and having access to a memory, wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the circuitry cause the at least one processor to execute operations comprising: receiving drive information collected from a plurality of vehicles that traversed a road segment,, (“In another embodiment, a navigation system for a host vehicle may include at least one processor comprising circuitry and a memory. The memory may include instructions that when executed by the circuitry cause the at least one processor to receive from a server a map including an autonomous vehicle road navigation model” (Heilbron: Description)) the drive information comprising an indication of a first speed-affecting landmark and a second speed-affecting landmark; determining a speed segment, as a subsection of the road segment, based on the first speed-affecting landmark and the second speed-affecting landmark,, (“Semantic objects may further be divided into two or more logical groups. […] the server may construct the map including a fully represented speed limit sign based on the type classification (representative of a speed limit sign) received from one or more harvesting vehicles along with the position information for the detected sign.” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “In one embodiment, velocity and acceleration module 406 may store software configured to analyze data received from one or more computing and electromechanical devices in vehicle 200 that are configured to cause a change in velocity and/or acceleration of vehicle 200. […] Based on the calculated target speed, processing unit 110 may transmit electronic signals to throttling system 220, braking system 230, and/or steering system 240 of vehicle 200 to trigger a change in velocity and/or acceleration by, for example, physically depressing the brake or easing up off the accelerator of vehicle 200.” (Heilbron: Description)) wherein the drive information received from each of the plurality of vehicles further includes one or more indicators of vehicle speed within the speed segment; determining, based on the one or more indicators of vehicle speed included in the drive information received from each of the plurality of vehicles, at least one aggregated common speed profile for the speed segment; storing the at least one aggregated common speed profile in an autonomous vehicle road navigation model associated with the speed segment; and distributing the autonomous vehicle road navigation model to one or more autonomous vehicles for use in navigating along the speed segment., (“In an embodiment, a system for collecting and distributing navigation information relative to a road segment may include at least one processor. […] and implementing the planned navigational action if the determined current stopping distance for the host vehicle is less than the determined next-state distance summed together with a target vehicle travel distance determined based on the current speed of the target vehicle and the assumed maximum braking capability of the target vehicle.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 2: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein each of the first speed-affecting landmark and the second speed-affecting landmark is of a type comprised by a speed limit indicator, a speed bump, a stop sign, a yield sign, and a traffic circle., (“Semantic objects may further be divided into two or more logical groups. For example, in some cases, one group of semantic object types may be associated with predetermined dimensions. […] the server may construct the map including a fully represented speed limit sign based on the type classification (representative of a speed limit sign) received from one or more harvesting vehicles along with the position information for the detected sign.” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “While road segment 3010 is illustrated as a straight roadway in Figs. 30A and 30B, the same or similar techniques may be used for any form of drivable path. […] Accordingly, when navigating road segment 3010, host vehicle 3050 may determine a target speed (or predict speeds of other vehicles) based on a specific common speed information specific to a current lane of the vehicle.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 3: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 2, wherein the first speed-affecting landmark is of a different type than the second speed-affecting landmark., (“Semantic objects may further be divided into two or more logical groups. For example, in some cases, one group of semantic object types may be associated with predetermined dimensions. […] the server may construct the map including a fully represented speed limit sign based on the type classification (representative of a speed limit sign) received from one or more harvesting vehicles along with the position information for the detected sign.” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “While road segment 3010 is illustrated as a straight roadway in Figs. 30A and 30B, the same or similar techniques may be used for any form of drivable path. […] Accordingly, when navigating road segment 3010, host vehicle 3050 may determine a target speed (or predict speeds of other vehicles) based on a specific common speed information specific to a current lane of the vehicle.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 4: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising determining a second speed segment between the second speed-affecting landmark and a third speed-affecting landmark,, (“Semantic objects may further be divided into two or more logical groups. […] the server may construct the map including a fully represented speed limit sign based on the type classification (representative of a speed limit sign) received from one or more harvesting vehicles along with the position information for the detected sign.” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “In one embodiment, velocity and acceleration module 406 may store software configured to analyze data received from one or more computing and electromechanical devices in vehicle 200 that are configured to cause a change in velocity and/or acceleration of vehicle 200. […] Based on the calculated target speed, processing unit 110 may transmit electronic signals to throttling system 220, braking system 230, and/or steering system 240 of vehicle 200 to trigger a change in velocity and/or acceleration by, for example, physically depressing the brake or easing up off the accelerator of vehicle 200.” (Heilbron: Description)) […] determining a second aggregated common speed profile for the second speed segment, […], (“In an embodiment, a system for collecting and distributing navigation information relative to a road segment may include at least one processor. […] and implementing the planned navigational action if the determined current stopping distance for the host vehicle is less than the determined next-state distance summed together with a target vehicle travel distance determined based on the current speed of the target vehicle and the assumed maximum braking capability of the target vehicle.” (Heilbron: Description)) […] and in response to determining a difference between the second aggregated common speed profile and the aggregated common speed profile that exceeds a predetermined threshold, smoothing a speed transition between the first speed segment and the second speed segment using a smoothing algorithm., (“System 3000 may account for these variations in speed in various ways. […] Any other characteristics that may be recorded in or otherwise ascertained drive information from vehicles may similarly be used to filter data.” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “In some embodiments, process 3600 includes filtering drive information to exclude the drive information(or a portion of the drive information) from the aggregated common speed profile. […] Accordingly, a target speed determined for a particular location along a road segment may fall between two different aggregated common speed values stored in the autonomous vehicle road navigation model. In some embodiments a curve, such as curve 3320 may be used.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 5: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the drive information further comprises a first road junction and a second road junction, the operations further comprising determining a road segment between the first road junction and the second road junction, wherein the speed segment is comprised by the road segment., (“At the mapping server, the server may receive actual trajectories for a particular road segment from multiple harvesting vehicles traversing the road segment. […] Once aligned, an average or “best fit” target trajectory for each available lane, etc. may be determined based on the aggregated, correlated/ aligned actual trajectories.” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “In some embodiments, all the drives in a cluster may be similar with respect to the lane assignment (e.g., in the same lane before and after a junction) along the drive on road segment 1200. […] The data of the target trajectories and landmarks may be continuously or periodically updated with new data received from other vehicles in subsequent drives.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 6: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 5, wherein the drive information comprises a road type indicator indicating a road type associated with the road segment, and wherein the aggregated common speed profile associated with the speed segment is adjusted based on the road type., (“While road segment 3010 is illustrated as a straight roadway in Figs. 30A and 30B, the same or similar techniques may be used for any form of drivable path. […] Accordingly, when navigating road segment 3010, host vehicle 3050 may determine a target speed (or predict speeds of other vehicles) based on a specific common speed information specific to a current lane of the vehicle.” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “Vehicle 3020 may transmit collected drive information to server 3040. […] Accordingly, when navigating along road segment 3010 at a location associated with position 3230, host vehicle 3010 may use speed value 3232 as a target speed for navigation, as described further below.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 7: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 6. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 6, wherein the road type is one of a highway, a city road, and a country road., (“In other examples, there may be many more target trajectories (e.g., one target trajectory for each viable lane of a multi-lane highway, urban street, complex junction, etc.) and there may be many more mapped available for localization.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 8: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one aggregated common speed profile is modified based on a speed limit associated with the road segment., (“In some embodiments, host vehicle 3050 may weigh a speed selected based on an aggregated common speed profile with speeds determined in other ways when determining a target speed based. […] but may be another defined value (e.g., 90% of a posted speed limit), a user-defined speed limit, a speed limit specified based on temporary conditions (e.g., a work zone, etc.), or any other information that may be used to define a speed limit value.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 9: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein each of the aggregated common speed profiles is associated with a different category of conditions during which the drive information from each of the plurality of vehicles was collected., (“Alternatively or additionally, separate aggregated common speed profiles may be generated for different categories of conditions, as described above with respect to Fig. 34. […] The categories of conditions may correspond to any of the characteristics of drive information described above.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 10: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 9, wherein the different categories of conditions include congested driving, poor weather driving, nighttime driving, uncongested driving, or fair weather driving., (“For example, the different categories of conditions may include congested driving, poor weather driving, nighttime driving, uncongested driving, fair weather driving, or the like.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 11: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 10, wherein drive information associated with congested driving is excluded from the determination of the at least one aggregated common speed profile., (“As described above, drive information associated with congested drives may excluded from the determination of the at least one aggregated common speed profile.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 12: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 10, wherein drive information associated with poor weather conditions is excluded from the determination of the at least one aggregated common speed profile., (“In other examples, drive information associated with poor weather conditions, nighttime driving, or the like may also be excluded from the determination of the at least one aggregated common speed profile.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 13: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 10, wherein drive information associated with nighttime driving is excluded from the determination of the at least one aggregated common speed profile., (“In other examples, drive information associated with poor weather conditions, nighttime driving, or the like may also be excluded from the determination of the at least one aggregated common speed profile.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 14: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the speed segment includes multiple lanes, and the at least one aggregated common speed profile includes a different aggregated common speed profile for each of the multiple lanes., (“For example, the road segment may include multiple lanes, and the at least one aggregated common speed profile may include a different aggregated common speed profile for each of the multiple lanes.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 15: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the drive information collected from each of the plurality of vehicles includes an indicator of road surface conditions experienced when the drive information was collected., (“For example, the drive information collected from each of the plurality of vehicles may include an indicator of a time of day during which the drive information was collected, an indicator of a traffic congestion level experienced when the drive information was collected, an indicator of weather conditions level experienced when the drive information was collected, an indicator of road surface conditions experienced when the drive information was collected, or the like.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 16: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein, in determining the at least one aggregated common speed profile, drive information associated with vehicles experiencing a closest-in-path-vehicle of less than 20 meters ahead or less than 1.5 seconds ahead is weighted less than drive information associated with vehicles not experiencing a closest-in-path-vehicle of less than 20 meters ahead or less than 1.5 seconds ahead., (“For example, vehicles experiencing a closest-in-path-vehicle of less than 20 meters ahead or less than 1.5 seconds ahead may be weighted less than drive information associated with vehicles not experiencing a closest-in-path-vehicle of less than 20 meters ahead or less than 1.5 seconds ahead (or any other suitable thresholds).” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “For example, in determining the at least one aggregated common speed profile, drive information associated with vehicles experiencing a closest-in-path-vehicle of less than 20 meters ahead or less than 1.5 seconds ahead is weighted less than drive information associated with vehicles not experiencing a closest-in-path-vehicle of less than 20 meters ahead or less than 1.5 seconds ahead.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 17: Heilbron teaches: A method for generating map information relative to a road segment, the method comprising: receiving drive information collected from a plurality of vehicles that traversed a road segment,, (“In another embodiment, a method for collecting and distributing navigation information relative to a road segment may include receiving drive information collected from each of a plurality of vehicles that traversed the road segment” (Heilbron: Description)) the drive information comprising an indication of a first speed-affecting landmark and a second speed-affecting landmark; determining a speed segment, as a subsection of the road segment, based on the first speed-affecting landmark and the second speed-affecting landmark,, (“Semantic objects may further be divided into two or more logical groups. […] the server may construct the map including a fully represented speed limit sign based on the type classification (representative of a speed limit sign) received from one or more harvesting vehicles along with the position information for the detected sign.” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “In one embodiment, velocity and acceleration module 406 may store software configured to analyze data received from one or more computing and electromechanical devices in vehicle 200 that are configured to cause a change in velocity and/or acceleration of vehicle 200. […] Based on the calculated target speed, processing unit 110 may transmit electronic signals to throttling system 220, braking system 230, and/or steering system 240 of vehicle 200 to trigger a change in velocity and/or acceleration by, for example, physically depressing the brake or easing up off the accelerator of vehicle 200.” (Heilbron: Description)) wherein the drive information received from each of the plurality of vehicles further includes one or more indicators of vehicle speed within the speed segment; determining, based on the one or more indicators of vehicle speed included in the drive information received from each of the plurality of vehicles, at least one aggregated common speed profile for the speed segment; and storing the at least one aggregated common speed profile in an autonomous vehicle road navigation model associated with the speed segment; and distributing the autonomous vehicle road navigation model to one or more autonomous vehicles for use in navigating along the speed segment., (“In an embodiment, a system for collecting and distributing navigation information relative to a road segment may include at least one processor. […] and implementing the planned navigational action if the determined current stopping distance for the host vehicle is less than the determined next-state distance summed together with a target vehicle travel distance determined based on the current speed of the target vehicle and the assumed maximum braking capability of the target vehicle.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 18: Heilbron teaches: A non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method for, (“non-transitory computer readable storage media may store program instructions, which are executed by at least one processor and perform any of the methods described herein.” (Heilbron: Description)) generating map information relative to a road segment, the method comprising: receiving drive information collected from a plurality of vehicles that traversed a road segment,, (“In another embodiment, a navigation system for a host vehicle may include at least one processor comprising circuitry and a memory. The memory may include instructions that when executed by the circuitry cause the at least one processor to receive from a server a map including an autonomous vehicle road navigation model” (Heilbron: Description)) the drive information comprising an indication of a first speed-affecting landmark and a second speed-affecting landmark; determining a speed segment, as a subsection of the road segment, based on the first speed-affecting landmark and the second speed-affecting landmark,, (“Semantic objects may further be divided into two or more logical groups. […] the server may construct the map including a fully represented speed limit sign based on the type classification (representative of a speed limit sign) received from one or more harvesting vehicles along with the position information for the detected sign.” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “In one embodiment, velocity and acceleration module 406 may store software configured to analyze data received from one or more computing and electromechanical devices in vehicle 200 that are configured to cause a change in velocity and/or acceleration of vehicle 200. […] Based on the calculated target speed, processing unit 110 may transmit electronic signals to throttling system 220, braking system 230, and/or steering system 240 of vehicle 200 to trigger a change in velocity and/or acceleration by, for example, physically depressing the brake or easing up off the accelerator of vehicle 200.” (Heilbron: Description)) wherein the drive information received from each of the plurality of vehicles further includes one or more indicators of vehicle speed within the speed segment; determining, based on the one or more indicators of vehicle speed included in the drive information received from each of the plurality of vehicles, at least one aggregated common speed profile for the speed segment; and storing the at least one aggregated common speed profile in an autonomous vehicle road navigation model associated with the speed segment; and distributing the autonomous vehicle road navigation model to one or more autonomous vehicles for use in navigating along the speed segment., (“In an embodiment, a system for collecting and distributing navigation information relative to a road segment may include at least one processor. […] and implementing the planned navigational action if the determined current stopping distance for the host vehicle is less than the determined next-state distance summed together with a target vehicle travel distance determined based on the current speed of the target vehicle and the assumed maximum braking capability of the target vehicle.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 19: Heilbron teaches: A navigation system for a host vehicle, the system comprising: at least one processor comprising circuitry and having access to a memory, wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the circuitry cause the at least one processor to execute operations comprising: receiving from a server a map including an autonomous vehicle road navigation model, the autonomous vehicle road navigation model including at least one aggregated common speed profile associated with a speed segment,, (“In another embodiment, a navigation system for a host vehicle may include at least one processor comprising circuitry and a memory. The memory may include instructions that when executed by the circuitry cause the at least one processor to receive from a server a map including an autonomous vehicle road navigation model, wherein the autonomous vehicle road navigation model includes at least one stored aggregated common speed profile associated with a road segment” (Heilbron: Description)) wherein the speed segment is delineated by a first speed-affecting landmark and a second speed-affecting landmark;, (“Semantic objects may further be divided into two or more logical groups. […] the server may construct the map including a fully represented speed limit sign based on the type classification (representative of a speed limit sign) received from one or more harvesting vehicles along with the position information for the detected sign.” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “In one embodiment, velocity and acceleration module 406 may store software configured to analyze data received from one or more computing and electromechanical devices in vehicle 200 that are configured to cause a change in velocity and/or acceleration of vehicle 200. […] Based on the calculated target speed, processing unit 110 may transmit electronic signals to throttling system 220, braking system 230, and/or steering system 240 of vehicle 200 to trigger a change in velocity and/or acceleration by, for example, physically depressing the brake or easing up off the accelerator of vehicle 200.” (Heilbron: Description)) determining, based on the at least one aggregated common speed profile stored in the autonomous vehicle road navigation model for the speed segment, a corresponding target speed for the host vehicle; and during navigation of the host vehicle along the speed segment, causing a speed adjustment of the host vehicle based on the target speed for the host vehicle., (“determine, based on the at least one aggregated common speed profile stored in the autonomous vehicle road navigation model and for at least one location associated with the road segment, a corresponding target speed for the host vehicle; and during navigation of the host vehicle along the road segment, cause a speed adjustment of the host vehicle based on the at least one location associated with the road segment and the corresponding target speed for the host vehicle” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 20: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 19. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 19, the operations further comprising, determining a speed limit for a current speed segment over which the host vehicle is travelling,, (“In some embodiments, other speed limit values may be considered in conjunction with the common speed profile when determining a target speed, as described above. […] Various other factors may be used to dynamically vary the weighting, as described in further detail above.” (Heilbron: Description)) […] and determining the target speed further based on the speed limit for the speed segment., (“In some embodiments, the target speed may be specified by a speed limit or other speed that applies to a length of road. […] Further, in long stretches of road, it may not be clear where a transition between different speed limits occurs.” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “In some embodiments, host vehicle 3050 may weigh a speed selected based on an aggregated common speed profile with speeds determined in other ways when determining a target speed based. […] The speed limit value used by host vehicle 3050 may not necessarily be a posted speed limit, but may be another defined value (e.g., 90% of a posted speed limit), a user-defined speed limit, a speed limit specified based on temporary conditions (e.g., a work zone, etc.), or any other information that may be used to define a speed limit value.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 21: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 19. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 19, wherein the speed limit has a different weight in determining the target speed than the at least one aggregated common speed profile., (“For example, the road segment may include multiple lanes, and the at least one aggregated common speed profile may include a different aggregated common speed profile for each of the multiple lanes.” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “In some embodiments, other speed limit values may be considered in conjunction with the common speed profile when determining a target speed, as described above. […] Various other factors may be used to dynamically vary the weighting, as described in further detail above.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 22: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 19. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 19, wherein each of the first speed-affecting landmark and the second speed-affecting landmark is of a type comprised by a speed limit indicator, a speed bump, a stop sign, a yield sign, and a traffic circle., (“Semantic objects may further be divided into two or more logical groups. For example, in some cases, one group of semantic object types may be associated with predetermined dimensions. […] the server may construct the map including a fully represented speed limit sign based on the type classification (representative of a speed limit sign) received from one or more harvesting vehicles along with the position information for the detected sign.” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “While road segment 3010 is illustrated as a straight roadway in Figs. 30A and 30B, the same or similar techniques may be used for any form of drivable path. […] Accordingly, when navigating road segment 3010, host vehicle 3050 may determine a target speed (or predict speeds of other vehicles) based on a specific common speed information specific to a current lane of the vehicle.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 23: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 22. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 22, wherein the first speed-affecting landmark is of a different type than the second speed-affecting landmark., (“Semantic objects may further be divided into two or more logical groups. For example, in some cases, one group of semantic object types may be associated with predetermined dimensions. […] the server may construct the map including a fully represented speed limit sign based on the type classification (representative of a speed limit sign) received from one or more harvesting vehicles along with the position information for the detected sign.” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “While road segment 3010 is illustrated as a straight roadway in Figs. 30A and 30B, the same or similar techniques may be used for any form of drivable path. […] Accordingly, when navigating road segment 3010, host vehicle 3050 may determine a target speed (or predict speeds of other vehicles) based on a specific common speed information specific to a current lane of the vehicle.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 24: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 19. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 19, the operations further comprising determining a second speed segment between the second speed-affecting landmark and a third speed-affecting landmark,, (“Semantic objects may further be divided into two or more logical groups. […] the server may construct the map including a fully represented speed limit sign based on the type classification (representative of a speed limit sign) received from one or more harvesting vehicles along with the position information for the detected sign.” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “In one embodiment, velocity and acceleration module 406 may store software configured to analyze data received from one or more computing and electromechanical devices in vehicle 200 that are configured to cause a change in velocity and/or acceleration of vehicle 200. […] Based on the calculated target speed, processing unit 110 may transmit electronic signals to throttling system 220, braking system 230, and/or steering system 240 of vehicle 200 to trigger a change in velocity and/or acceleration by, for example, physically depressing the brake or easing up off the accelerator of vehicle 200.” (Heilbron: Description)) […] determining a second aggregated common speed profile for the second speed segment, […], (“In an embodiment, a system for collecting and distributing navigation information relative to a road segment may include at least one processor. […] and implementing the planned navigational action if the determined current stopping distance for the host vehicle is less than the determined next-state distance summed together with a target vehicle travel distance determined based on the current speed of the target vehicle and the assumed maximum braking capability of the target vehicle.” (Heilbron: Description)) […] and in response to determining a difference between the second aggregated common speed profile and the aggregated common speed profile that exceeds a predetermined threshold, smoothing a speed transition between the first speed segment and the second speed segment using a smoothing algorithm., (“System 3000 may account for these variations in speed in various ways. […] Any other characteristics that may be recorded in or otherwise ascertained drive information from vehicles may similarly be used to filter data.” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “In some embodiments, process 3600 includes filtering drive information to exclude the drive information(or a portion of the drive information) from the aggregated common speed profile. […] Accordingly, a target speed determined for a particular location along a road segment may fall between two different aggregated common speed values stored in the autonomous vehicle road navigation model. In some embodiments a curve, such as curve 3320 may be used.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 25: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 19. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 19, wherein the at least one aggregated common speed profile is modified based on a speed limit associated with the road segment., (“In some embodiments, host vehicle 3050 may weigh a speed selected based on an aggregated common speed profile with speeds determined in other ways when determining a target speed based. […] but may be another defined value (e.g., 90% of a posted speed limit), a user-defined speed limit, a speed limit specified based on temporary conditions (e.g., a work zone, etc.), or any other information that may be used to define a speed limit value.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 26: Heilbron , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 19. Heilbron further teaches: The system of claim 19, wherein the speed segment includes multiple lanes, and the at least one aggregated common speed profile includes a different aggregated common speed profile for each of the multiple lanes., (“For example, the road segment may include multiple lanes, and the at least one aggregated common speed profile may include a different aggregated common speed profile for each of the multiple lanes.” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 27: Heilbron teaches: A method for operating a navigation system for a host vehicle, the method comprising: receiving from a server a map including an autonomous vehicle road navigation model, the autonomous vehicle road navigation model including at least one aggregated common speed profile associated with a speed segment,, (“In another embodiment, a method for navigating a host vehicle may include receiving from a server a map including an autonomous vehicle road navigation model, wherein the autonomous vehicle road navigation model includes at least one stored aggregated common speed profile associated with a road segment” (Heilbron: Description)) wherein the speed segment is delineated by a first speed-affecting landmark and a second speed-affecting landmark;, (“Semantic objects may further be divided into two or more logical groups. […] the server may construct the map including a fully represented speed limit sign based on the type classification (representative of a speed limit sign) received from one or more harvesting vehicles along with the position information for the detected sign.” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “In one embodiment, velocity and acceleration module 406 may store software configured to analyze data received from one or more computing and electromechanical devices in vehicle 200 that are configured to cause a change in velocity and/or acceleration of vehicle 200. […] Based on the calculated target speed, processing unit 110 may transmit electronic signals to throttling system 220, braking system 230, and/or steering system 240 of vehicle 200 to trigger a change in velocity and/or acceleration by, for example, physically depressing the brake or easing up off the accelerator of vehicle 200.” (Heilbron: Description)) determining, based on the at least one aggregated common speed profile stored in the autonomous vehicle road navigation model for the speed segment, a corresponding target speed for the host vehicle; and during navigation of the host vehicle along the speed segment, causing a speed adjustment of the host vehicle based on the target speed for the host vehicle., (“determine, based on the at least one aggregated common speed profile stored in the autonomous vehicle road navigation model and for at least one location associated with the road segment, a corresponding target speed for the host vehicle; and during navigation of the host vehicle along the road segment, cause a speed adjustment of the host vehicle based on the at least one location associated with the road segment and the corresponding target speed for the host vehicle” (Heilbron: Description)) Regarding Claim 28: Heilbron teaches: A non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform, (“non-transitory computer readable storage media may store program instructions, which are executed by at least one processor and perform any of the methods described herein.” (Heilbron: Description)) a method for operating a navigation system for a host vehicle, the method comprising: receiving from a server a map including an autonomous vehicle road navigation model, the autonomous vehicle road navigation model including at least one aggregated common speed profile associated with a speed segment,, (“In another embodiment, a method for navigating a host vehicle may include receiving from a server a map including an autonomous vehicle road navigation model, wherein the autonomous vehicle road navigation model includes at least one stored aggregated common speed profile associated with a road segment” (Heilbron: Description)) wherein the speed segment is delineated by a first speed-affecting landmark and a second speed-affecting landmark;, (“Semantic objects may further be divided into two or more logical groups. […] the server may construct the map including a fully represented speed limit sign based on the type classification (representative of a speed limit sign) received from one or more harvesting vehicles along with the position information for the detected sign.” (Heilbron: Description) Heilbron further mentions “In one embodiment, velocity and acceleration module 406 may store software configured to analyze data received from one or more computing and electromechanical devices in vehicle 200 that are configured to cause a change in velocity and/or acceleration of vehicle 200. […] Based on the calculated target speed, processing unit 110 may transmit electronic signals to throttling system 220, braking system 230, and/or steering system 240 of vehicle 200 to trigger a change in velocity and/or acceleration by, for example, physically depressing the brake or easing up off the accelerator of vehicle 200.” (Heilbron: Description)) determining, based on the at least one aggregated common speed profile stored in the autonomous vehicle road navigation model for the speed segment, a corresponding target speed for the host vehicle; and during navigation of the host vehicle along the speed segment, causing a speed adjustment of the host vehicle based on the target speed for the host vehicle., (“determine, based on the at least one aggregated common speed profile stored in the autonomous vehicle road navigation model and for at least one location associated with the road segment, a corresponding target speed for the host vehicle; and during navigation of the host vehicle along the road segment, cause a speed adjustment of the host vehicle based on the at least one location associated with the road segment and the corresponding target speed for the host vehicle” (Heilbron: Description)) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754 . The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30 . 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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206 . 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. /J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 2 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 3 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 4 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 5 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 6 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 7 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 8 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 9 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 10 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 11 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 12 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 13 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 14 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 15 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 16 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 17 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 18 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 19 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 20 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 21 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 22 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 23 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 24 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 25 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 26 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 27 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 28 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 29 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 30 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 31 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 32 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/980,693 Page 33 Art Unit: 3663
Prosecution Insights