DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 03/03/2025. Claims 1-19 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim contains the minor typo, "claim7". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "another processing node is configured to" in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-6 are under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 1 recites the limitation "the one or more predictions" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether these predictions are in reference to the anticipated location of the vehicle. Claims 2-6 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 17-18 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 17 and 18, lines 5-6 recite "optimized vehicular traffic flow", "optimized pedestrian traffic flow", "optimized traffic flow", "holistically optimizes vehicular traffic flow", and "optimizes vehicular traffic flow". The terms “optimize” in claim 17-18 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The term “optimize” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. "
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process as it recites (a method of providing).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites:
A method of providing geographically-converged telemetry data, the method comprising:
receiving, from a vehicle, a request for telemetry data;
determining an anticipated location of the vehicle based on navigation data;
identifying the telemetry data relevant to the vehicle based at least in part on geolocation metadata associated with the telemetry data and the anticipated location of the vehicle;
generating a feed of converged telemetry data relevant to the vehicle from the identified telemetry data relevant to the vehicle; and
transmitting the feed of converged telemetry data to the vehicle for enabling the vehicle to make a decision based at least in part on the relevant telemetry data and the one or more predictions.
The recited limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as this step fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers a concept performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of:
A method of providing geographically-converged telemetry data, the method comprising:
receiving, from a vehicle, a request for telemetry data;
determining an anticipated location of the vehicle based on navigation data;
identifying the telemetry data relevant to the vehicle based at least in part on geolocation metadata associated with the telemetry data and the anticipated location of the vehicle;
generating a feed of converged telemetry data relevant to the vehicle from the identified telemetry data relevant to the vehicle; and
transmitting the feed of converged telemetry data to the vehicle for enabling the vehicle to make a decision based at least in part on the relevant telemetry data and the one or more predictions.
The instructions for receiving a request (i.e., as a general means for receiving, from a vehicle, a request), amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the instruction for transmitting the feed of converged telemetry data to indicate are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means for transmitting the feed of converged telemetry data), and are similar to displaying information, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the additional elements are applying the abstract ideas in a vehicle environment. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: 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 Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to display data. Further the mere collection or receipt of data for the purposes of making determinations, such as formulating an understanding of a vehicle’s behavior, is also well understood and conventional in the art, as indicated in the following rejections under 103. For these reasons, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim does not include an inventive concept.
As per claims 2-6
These method claims further define the abstract ideas of the mental processes illustrated in claim 1, they do not recite any additional elements or other limitations that transform the display of analyzed vehicular data, and these elements are well-understood, routine and conventional in the art, as indicated in the following rejections under 103.
As per claim 7
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process as it recites (a method for providing).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites:
A method for providing geographically-converged telemetry data comprising:
receiving telemetry data from a plurality of telemetry data sources, wherein the plurality of telemetry data sources include at least one vehicle;
determining geolocations associated with the telemetry data;
associating geolocation metadata with the corresponding telemetry data based on the determined geolocations;
publishing converged telemetry data to one or more of a plurality of data queues, wherein each of the plurality of data queues may be associated with a particular decision that a vehicle is configured to make;
receiving an indication of a request for data published to the plurality of data queues from a vehicle; and
transmitting the converged telemetry data published from a data queue to the vehicle.
The recited limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as this step fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers a concept performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of:
A method for providing geographically-converged telemetry data comprising:
receiving telemetry data from a plurality of telemetry data sources, wherein the plurality of telemetry data sources include at least one vehicle;
determining geolocations associated with the telemetry data;
associating geolocation metadata with the corresponding telemetry data based on the determined geolocations;
publishing converged telemetry data to one or more of a plurality of data queues, wherein each of the plurality of data queues may be associated with a particular decision that a vehicle is configured to make;
receiving an indication of a request for data published to the plurality of data queues from a vehicle; and
transmitting the converged telemetry data published from a data queue to the vehicle.
The instructions for receiving telemetry data and receiving an indication of a request for data (i.e., as a general means for receiving, from a vehicle, a request, and receiving an indication of a request for data), amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the instruction for publishing converged telemetry data and transmitting the converged telemetry data are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means for publishing converged telemetry data and transmitting the converged telemetry data), and are similar to displaying information, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the additional elements are applying the abstract ideas in a vehicle environment. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: 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 Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to display data. Further the mere collection or receipt of data for the purposes of making determinations, such as formulating an understanding of a vehicle’s behavior, is also well understood and conventional in the art, as indicated in the following rejections under 103. For these reasons, claim 7 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim does not include an inventive concept.
As per claims 8-14
These method claims further define the abstract ideas of the mental processes illustrated in claim 7, they do not recite any additional elements or other limitations that transform the display of analyzed vehicular data, and these elements are well-understood, routine and conventional in the art, as indicated in the following rejections under 103.
As per claim 15
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process as it recites (a method of providing).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites:
A method of providing geographically-converged telemetry data, the method comprising:
receiving telemetry data from a plurality of telemetry data sources, wherein the plurality of telemetry data sources include at least one vehicle;
determining geolocations associated with the telemetry data;
associating geolocation metadata with the corresponding telemetry data based on the determined geolocations;
identifying telemetry data relevant to a traffic control system based at least in part on the geolocation metadata;
generating a feed of converged telemetry data relevant to the traffic control system; and
transmitting the feed of converged telemetry data to the traffic control system for enabling the traffic control system to make a traffic control decision based at least in part on the relevant telemetry data.
The recited limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as this step fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers a concept performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of:
A method of providing geographically-converged telemetry data, the method comprising:
receiving telemetry data from a plurality of telemetry data sources, wherein the plurality of telemetry data sources include at least one vehicle;
determining geolocations associated with the telemetry data;
associating geolocation metadata with the corresponding telemetry data based on the determined geolocations;
identifying telemetry data relevant to a traffic control system based at least in part on the geolocation metadata;
generating a feed of converged telemetry data relevant to the traffic control system; and
transmitting the feed of converged telemetry data to the traffic control system for enabling the traffic control system to make a traffic control decision based at least in part on the relevant telemetry data.
The instructions for receiving a request (i.e., as a general means for receiving, from a vehicle, a request), amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the instruction for transmitting the feed of converged telemetry data to indicate are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means for transmitting the feed of converged telemetry data), and are similar to displaying information, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the additional elements are applying the abstract ideas in a vehicle environment. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: 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 Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to display data. Further the mere collection or receipt of data for the purposes of making determinations, such as formulating an understanding of a vehicle’s behavior, is also well understood and conventional in the art, as indicated in the following rejections under 103. For these reasons, claim 15 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim does not include an inventive concept.
As per claims 16-19
These method claims further define the abstract ideas of the mental processes illustrated in claim 15, they do not recite any additional elements or other limitations that transform the display of analyzed vehicular data, and these elements are well-understood, routine and conventional in the art, as indicated in the following rejections under 103.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Guim Bernat et al., US-20210144517-A1, in view of Zhou et al., US-20200117193-A1, and Tashiro et al., US-20200001878-A1, hereinafter referred to as Guim Bernat, Zhou, and Tashiro.
As per claim 1
Guim Bernat discloses [a] method of providing geographically-converged telemetry data, the method comprising (record information about the motion, vector and direction of resources…describe these features as both telemetry and metadata associated with the devices, a first operation to receive, at an edge node, telemetry data from a plurality of platforms…at least some of the telemetry data is received from another edge node 6306, 6308, 6310. The edge node 6306, 6308, 6310 may be one of a plurality of distributed edge nodes for a region - Guim Bernat ¶138 & ¶1106):
receiving, from a vehicle, a request for telemetry data (store the telemetry data at the edge node…an operation to receive a request from a tenant device for a portion of the telemetry data corresponding to a service - Guim Bernat ¶1107);
determining an anticipated location of the vehicle based on navigation data (digression on a freeway due to an accident or congestion, the model reacts to such an observation to dynamically change the prediction to a different route that a vehicle is most likely to embrace. In addition to reducing or eliminating data transfer latencies - Guim Bernat ¶640).
Guim Bernat does not specifically disclose identifying the telemetry data relevant to the vehicle based at least in part on geolocation metadata associated with the telemetry data and the anticipated location of the vehicle.
Guim Bernat discloses metadata and vehicle route prediction. However, Zhou teaches identifying the telemetry data relevant to the vehicle based at least in part on geolocation metadata associated with the telemetry data and the anticipated location of the vehicle (metadata include a relative position (including distance) of each detected object from the autonomous-driving vehicle system 100, obtains metadata of a movable traffic object and determines a predicted moving path of the movable traffic object based on the obtained metadata…such as a driving speed - Zhou ¶37 & ¶43).
Guim Bernat discloses an edge computing architecture and implementing an edge computing system. Zhou teaches a system and method for an autonomous-driving vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Guim Bernat, an edge computing architecture and implementing an edge computing system, with a system and method for an autonomous-driving vehicle, as taught by Zhou, with a reasonable expectation of success to provide useful information from autonomous-driving vehicles for traffic safety, see Zhou ¶1 for details.
Guim Bernat does not specifically disclose generating a feed of converged telemetry data relevant to the vehicle from the identified telemetry data relevant to the vehicle;
transmitting the feed of converged telemetry data to the vehicle for enabling the vehicle to make a decision based at least in part on the relevant telemetry data and the one or more predictions.
Guim Bernat discloses metadata and vehicle route prediction. However, Tashiro teaches generating a feed of converged telemetry data relevant to the vehicle from the identified telemetry data relevant to the vehicle (step S10 executed by the host vehicle and the other vehicle, basic vehicle information such as a current position, a current speed, and a traveling direction of each vehicle of the host vehicle and the other vehicle are transmitted to the data center 27, each vehicle position is to be mapped on the map with use of the current position data of the vehicle information, transmits vehicle information of other vehicles present in front of the host vehicle that has requested the priority vehicle information - Tashiro Fig. 2 (S10-S23) + ¶55 & ¶58 & ¶78);
transmitting the feed of converged telemetry data to the vehicle for enabling the vehicle to make a decision based at least in part on the relevant telemetry data and the one or more predictions (determined whether there is a request for priority vehicle information. This can be determined by a request signal for priority vehicle information from step S19, data center 27 sequentially transmits vehicle information of other vehicles present in front of the host vehicle that has requested the priority vehicle information. That is, the data center 27 periodically transmits vehicle information of other vehicles present in a predetermined area in front of the host vehicle. For example, as in FIG. 6A, the data center 27 transmits, in vehicle information of a predetermined area in which the other vehicles A to E are present, Whereas, in FIG. 6A, since it is known that the other vehicle B is turning left, the other vehicle B is regarded as a vehicle having a deceleration cause. Therefore, the process proceeds to step S21, and the vehicle information pertaining to the other vehicle B as priority vehicle information is to be transmitted - Tashiro Fig. 2 (S10-S23) + ¶77-¶79).
Guim Bernat discloses an edge computing architecture and implementing an edge computing system. Tashiro teaches a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Guim Bernat, an edge computing architecture and implementing an edge computing system, with a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system, as taught by Tashiro, with a reasonable expectation of success for enabling improvement of fuel consumption performance, so that the detection accuracy of the deceleration cause information can be improved, and for enabling improvement of the drivability, see Tashiro ¶3 & ¶64 & ¶121 for details.
As per claim 2
Guim Bernat further discloses utilizing different processing nodes to process the identified telemetry data relevant to the vehicle so that the processing of the identified telemetry data relevant to the vehicle follows the vehicle as it moves between processing nodes (record information about the motion, vector and direction of resources…describe these features as both telemetry and metadata associated with the devices, a first operation to receive, at an edge node, telemetry data from a plurality of platforms…at least some of the telemetry data is received from another edge node 6306, 6308, 6310. The edge node 6306, 6308, 6310 may be one of a plurality of distributed edge nodes for a region - Guim Bernat ¶138 & ¶1106).
Guim Bernat does not specifically disclose wherein generating the feed of converged telemetry data relevant to the vehicle comprises.
Guim Bernat discloses metadata and vehicle route prediction. However, Tashiro teaches wherein generating the feed of converged telemetry data relevant to the vehicle comprises (step S10 executed by the host vehicle and the other vehicle, basic vehicle information such as a current position, a current speed, and a traveling direction of each vehicle of the host vehicle and the other vehicle are transmitted to the data center 27, each vehicle position is to be mapped on the map with use of the current position data of the vehicle information, transmits vehicle information of other vehicles present in front of the host vehicle that has requested the priority vehicle information - Tashiro Fig. 2 (S10-S23) + ¶55 & ¶58 & ¶78).
Guim Bernat discloses an edge computing architecture and implementing an edge computing system. Tashiro teaches a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Guim Bernat, an edge computing architecture and implementing an edge computing system, with a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system, as taught by Tashiro, with a reasonable expectation of success for enabling improvement of fuel consumption performance, so that the detection accuracy of the deceleration cause information can be improved, and for enabling improvement of the drivability, see Tashiro ¶3 & ¶64 & ¶121 for details.
As per claim 3
Guim Bernat further discloses wherein the utilizing different processing nodes to process the identified telemetry data relevant to the vehicle so that the processing of the identified telemetry data relevant to the vehicle follows the vehicle as it moves between processing nodes comprises: transmitting the identified telemetry data relevant to the vehicle to another processing node in an edge network proximate to the anticipated location, and wherein the another processing node is configured to (record information about the motion, vector and direction of resources…describe these features as both telemetry and metadata associated with the devices, ] model predicts the most likely moments when the requestor may transit between the identified base stations. Based on these predictions, the data may be marshalled for moving the service session from one point of proximity to the requestor to respective second or subsequent points of proximity… data is transmitted (e.g., streamed, multicast, etc.) ahead of the actual movement of the requestor. This pre-sending of data, effectuated just-in-time, reduces the actual amount of data that must occur when the predicted trajectory is followed by the requestor, a first operation to receive, at an edge node, telemetry data from a plurality of platforms…at least some of the telemetry data is received from another edge node 6306, 6308, 6310. The edge node 6306, 6308, 6310 may be one of a plurality of distributed edge nodes for a region - Guim Bernat ¶138 & ¶638 & ¶1106).
Guim Bernat does not specifically disclose generate the feed of converged telemetry data relevant to the vehicle based on the processing of the identified telemetry data relevant to the vehicle;
transmit the feed of converged telemetry data to the vehicle for enabling the vehicle to make a decision based at least in part on the relevant telemetry data.
Guim Bernat discloses metadata and vehicle route prediction. However, Tashiro teaches generate the feed of converged telemetry data relevant to the vehicle based on the processing of the identified telemetry data relevant to the vehicle (step S10 executed by the host vehicle and the other vehicle, basic vehicle information such as a current position, a current speed, and a traveling direction of each vehicle of the host vehicle and the other vehicle are transmitted to the data center 27, each vehicle position is to be mapped on the map with use of the current position data of the vehicle information, transmits vehicle information of other vehicles present in front of the host vehicle that has requested the priority vehicle information - Tashiro Fig. 2 (S10-S23) + ¶55 & ¶58 & ¶78);
transmit the feed of converged telemetry data to the vehicle for enabling the vehicle to make a decision based at least in part on the relevant telemetry data (determined whether there is a request for priority vehicle information. This can be determined by a request signal for priority vehicle information from step S19, data center 27 sequentially transmits vehicle information of other vehicles present in front of the host vehicle that has requested the priority vehicle information. That is, the data center 27 periodically transmits vehicle information of other vehicles present in a predetermined area in front of the host vehicle. For example, as in FIG. 6A, the data center 27 transmits, in vehicle information of a predetermined area in which the other vehicles A to E are present, Whereas, in FIG. 6A, since it is known that the other vehicle B is turning left, the other vehicle B is regarded as a vehicle having a deceleration cause. Therefore, the process proceeds to step S21, and the vehicle information pertaining to the other vehicle B as priority vehicle information is to be transmitted - Tashiro Fig. 2 (S10-S23) + ¶77-¶79).
Guim Bernat discloses an edge computing architecture and implementing an edge computing system. Tashiro teaches a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Guim Bernat, an edge computing architecture and implementing an edge computing system, with a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system, as taught by Tashiro, with a reasonable expectation of success for enabling improvement of fuel consumption performance, so that the detection accuracy of the deceleration cause information can be improved, and for enabling improvement of the drivability, see Tashiro ¶3 & ¶64 & ¶121 for details.
As per claim 4
Guim Bernat does not specifically disclose wherein identifying the telemetry data relevant to the vehicle comprises determining telemetry data that are locally-relevant to the vehicle based at least in part on the anticipated location of the vehicle.
Guim Bernat discloses metadata and vehicle route prediction. However, Tashiro teaches wherein identifying the telemetry data relevant to the vehicle comprises determining telemetry data that are locally-relevant to the vehicle based at least in part on the anticipated location of the vehicle (determined whether there is a request for priority vehicle information. This can be determined by a request signal for priority vehicle information from step S19, data center 27 sequentially transmits vehicle information of other vehicles present in front of the host vehicle that has requested the priority vehicle information. That is, the data center 27 periodically transmits vehicle information of other vehicles present in a predetermined area in front of the host vehicle. For example, as in FIG. 6A, the data center 27 transmits, in vehicle information of a predetermined area in which the other vehicles A to E are present, Whereas, in FIG. 6A, since it is known that the other vehicle B is turning left, the other vehicle B is regarded as a vehicle having a deceleration cause. Therefore, the process proceeds to step S21, and the vehicle information pertaining to the other vehicle B as priority vehicle information is to be transmitted - Tashiro Fig. 2 (S10-S23) + ¶77-¶79).
Guim Bernat discloses an edge computing architecture and implementing an edge computing system. Tashiro teaches a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Guim Bernat, an edge computing architecture and implementing an edge computing system, with a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system, as taught by Tashiro, with a reasonable expectation of success for enabling improvement of fuel consumption performance, so that the detection accuracy of the deceleration cause information can be improved, and for enabling improvement of the drivability, see Tashiro ¶3 & ¶64 & ¶121 for details.
As per claim 5
Guim Bernat does not specifically disclose wherein the decision is associated with activating an automated functionality of the vehicle.
Guim Bernat discloses metadata and vehicle route prediction. However, Tashiro teaches wherein the decision is associated with activating an automated functionality of the vehicle (this embodiment is targeted for the vehicle that performs automatic driving - Tashiro Fig. 2 (S10-S23) + ¶114).
Guim Bernat discloses an edge computing architecture and implementing an edge computing system. Tashiro teaches a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Guim Bernat, an edge computing architecture and implementing an edge computing system, with a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system, as taught by Tashiro, with a reasonable expectation of success for enabling improvement of fuel consumption performance, so that the detection accuracy of the deceleration cause information can be improved, and for enabling improvement of the drivability, see Tashiro ¶3 & ¶64 & ¶121 for details.
As per claim 6
Guim Bernat does not specifically disclose wherein generating the feed of converged telemetry data relevant to the vehicle comprises generating a state of surroundings, the state including at least one of: road conditions; weather conditions; navigation data; and a detection of: vehicles; pedestrians; objects; and road hazards.
Guim Bernat discloses metadata and vehicle route prediction. However, Tashiro teaches wherein generating the feed of converged telemetry data relevant to the vehicle comprises generating a state of surroundings, the state including at least one of: road conditions; weather conditions; navigation data; and a detection of: vehicles; pedestrians; objects; and road hazards (In the data center, when a front vehicle group (vehicles A to I) in which a large number of other vehicles exist is traveling in front of the host vehicle, at least vehicle speed information (solid arrow) of the front vehicle group is accumulated, in addition to the preceding vehicle of the host vehicle - Tashiro Fig. 2 (S10-S23) + ¶8).
Guim Bernat discloses an edge computing architecture and implementing an edge computing system. Tashiro teaches a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Guim Bernat, an edge computing architecture and implementing an edge computing system, with a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system, as taught by Tashiro, with a reasonable expectation of success for enabling improvement of fuel consumption performance, so that the detection accuracy of the deceleration cause information can be improved, and for enabling improvement of the drivability, see Tashiro ¶3 & ¶64 & ¶121 for details.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro, in view of Grigsby et al., US-20090144233-A1, hereinafter referred to as Grigsby.
As per claim 7
Tashiro discloses [a] method for providing geographically-converged telemetry data comprising (step S10 executed by the host vehicle and the other vehicle, basic vehicle information such as a current position, a current speed, and a traveling direction of each vehicle of the host vehicle and the other vehicle are transmitted to the data center 27 - Tashiro Fig. 2 (S10-S23) + ¶55):
receiving telemetry data from a plurality of telemetry data sources, wherein the plurality of telemetry data sources include at least one vehicle (step S10 executed by the host vehicle and the other vehicle, basic vehicle information such as a current position, a current speed, and a traveling direction of each vehicle of the host vehicle and the other vehicle are transmitted to the data center 27 - Tashiro Fig. 2 (S10-S23) + ¶55);
determining geolocations associated with the telemetry data (step S10 executed by the host vehicle and the other vehicle, basic vehicle information such as a current position, a current speed, and a traveling direction of each vehicle of the host vehicle and the other vehicle are transmitted to the data center 27, each vehicle position is to be mapped on the map with use of the current position data of the vehicle information - Tashiro Fig. 2 (S10-S23) + ¶55 & ¶58);
publishing converged telemetry data to one or more of a plurality of data queues, wherein each of the plurality of data queues may be associated with a particular decision that a vehicle is configured to make (data center 27 that has received the vehicle information generates necessary vehicle information from the individual vehicle information. Then, in step S11 executed by the data center 27, vehicle information and the like received from the host vehicle and the other vehicle are sequentially updated and stored in the storage device. In this case, since a map database is stored in the storage device, each vehicle position is to be mapped on the map with use of the current position data of the vehicle information - Tashiro Fig. 2 (S10-S23) + ¶58);
receiving an indication of a request for data published to the plurality of data queues from a vehicle; and transmitting the converged telemetry data published from a data queue to the vehicle (determined whether there is a request for priority vehicle information. This can be determined by a request signal for priority vehicle information from step S19, data center 27 sequentially transmits vehicle information of other vehicles present in front of the host vehicle that has requested the priority vehicle information. That is, the data center 27 periodically transmits vehicle information of other vehicles present in a predetermined area in front of the host vehicle. For example, as in FIG. 6A, the data center 27 transmits, in vehicle information of a predetermined area in which the other vehicles A to E are present, Whereas, in FIG. 6A, since it is known that the other vehicle B is turning left, the other vehicle B is regarded as a vehicle having a deceleration cause. Therefore, the process proceeds to step S21, and the vehicle information pertaining to the other vehicle B as priority vehicle information is to be transmitted - Tashiro Fig. 2 (S10-S23) + ¶77-¶79).
Tashiro does not specifically disclose associating geolocation metadata with the corresponding telemetry data based on the determined geolocations.
However, Grigsby teaches associating geolocation metadata with the corresponding telemetry data based on the determined geolocations (associates at least one form of metadata with the image, wherein the at least one form of metadata includes global positioning system (GPS) coordinates…speed of a vehicle at the time of image capture, direction of travel at the time of image capture – Grigsby ¶5).
Tashiro discloses a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system. Grigsby teaches a system and method for implementing automotive image capture and retrieval.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tashiro, a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system, with a system and method for implementing automotive image capture and retrieval, as taught by Grigsby, with a reasonable expectation of success to associate at least one form of metadata with the image, see Grigsby ¶5 for details.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro, in view of Grigsby, as per claim 7, and further in view of Park et al., US-20200136859-A1, hereinafter referred to as Park.
As per claim 8
Tashiro does not specifically disclose further comprising: receiving an indication of a subscription of the vehicle to the data queue, wherein the subscription defines data relevant to the vehicle based on one or more automated functions performed by the vehicle.
However, Park teaches further comprising: receiving an indication of a subscription of the vehicle to the data queue, wherein the subscription defines data relevant to the vehicle based on one or more automated functions performed by the vehicle (a system and method of controlling network traffic for a network in a device…The one or more recipient units are configured to send respective subscription requests for data originating from the one or more provider units, via the network. A controller is in communication with the plurality of units. The controller is also in communication with a queue module configured to store the respective subscription requests – Park ¶2).
Tashiro discloses a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system. Park teaches a system and method of controlling network traffic for a network in a device that has a plurality of units.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tashiro, a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system, with a system and method of controlling network traffic for a network in a device that has a plurality of units, as taught by Park, with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the functioning of the device 12 by accommodating significant changes in the network flow's behavior at runtime and increasing efficiency in computation, see Park ¶17 for details.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro, in view of Grigsby, as per claim 7, and further in view of Wolcott et al., US-20220038983-A1, hereinafter referred to as Wolcott.
As per claim 9
Tashiro does not specifically disclose further comprising: for each instance of received telemetry data, determining a network node used by the telemetry source to transmit the telemetry data; accessing a network topology database to determine a geolocation of the network node; and identifying the geolocation of the network node as the geolocation associated with the telemetry data.
However, Wolcott teaches further comprising: for each instance of received telemetry data, determining a network node used by the telemetry source to transmit the telemetry data; accessing a network topology database to determine a geolocation of the network node; and identifying the geolocation of the network node as the geolocation associated with the telemetry data (call management device 100 may use converged topology information 102 to determine which portions of the network will be used if the mobile device continues the call from the access point and which portions of the network will be used… call management device 100 may receive the DOCSIS telemetry information, such as DOCSIS PNM telemetry information 104 for each of the determined portions of the network….The DOCSIS telemetry information 104 may comprise telemetry information for a plurality of devices. The DOCSIS telemetry information 104 may comprise a corresponding location (e.g., or region or portion of the network) for one or more of the plurality of devices. In some implementations, the call management device 100 may determine and/or associate location information with the DOCSIS telemetry information 104. If the DOCSIS telemetry information 104 indicates a particular network device (e.g., optical node, amplifier, splitter, router, multiplexer, modem), the call management device 100 may determine a data indicative of a location (e.g., region, topology location) of the network device, a handoff parameter…network topology. …For example, the wireless telemetry information…signal strength…associated with a wireless access point - Wolcott ¶20 & ¶47).
Tashiro discloses a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system. Wolcott teaches systems and methods for proactive call management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tashiro, a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system, with systems and methods for proactive call management, as taught by Wolcott, with a reasonable expectation of success to determine whether transmission quality of the call may be improved by connecting a user device to a different network device in the network topology, see Wolcott ¶3 for details, and because the network connectivity and communication mapping disclosed in Wolcott can apply to the vehicle to server communication system of Tashiro as the claim limitations here are directed to network topology.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro, in view of Grigsby, as per claim 7, and further in view of Wolcott, and Carter, US-20030146835-A1, hereinafter referred to as Carter.
As per claim 10
Tashiro does not specifically disclose further comprising: for each instance of received telemetry data, determining a plurality of network nodes that the telemetry source is in communication with; and determining, based on the signal strengths and geolocations of the plurality of nodes, a geolocation of the telemetry source.
However, Carter teaches further comprising: for each instance of received telemetry data, determining a plurality of network nodes that the telemetry source is in communication with; and determining, based on the signal strengths and geolocations of the plurality of nodes, a geolocation of the telemetry source (tracks the locations of the transceivers by combining a signal strength based locating process with a topological tracking process, transceivers preferably forward some or all of this information to a server or other processing node. The processing node uses this information, together with information about expected received signal strengths in specific areas, to predict the current location of each transceiver., transceiver forwards some or all of this information about the received beacon transmissions to a server or other processing node…using a link established…for telemetry purposes. The processing node uses this information together with a set of tables to determine the transceiver's location., FIG. 1 illustrates the components of a…telemetry system that embodies the present invention, signal strength…across the access points 34, and have the access points (rather than a server 38) determine the respective locations of transceivers 30 with which they have connections. The access points could then insert into the real time stream of telemetry data indicators of the…locations - Carter ¶4 & ¶6 & ¶7 & ¶23 & ¶57).
Tashiro discloses a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system. Carter teaches an object location monitoring system that tracks the locations of portable wireless transceivers that attach to movable objects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tashiro, a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system, with an object location monitoring system that tracks the locations of portable wireless transceivers that attach to movable objects, as taught by Carter, with a reasonable expectation of success for advantageously reduce power consumption of transceiver 30 by reducing the amount of time transceiver 30 is detecting beacon transmissions, see Carter ¶65 for details, and because the signal strength mapping disclosed in Carter can apply to the vehicle to server communication system of Tashiro as the claim limitations here are directed to network topology.
Tashiro does not specifically disclose determining the telemetry source's signal strength with respect to each of the plurality of network nodes; accessing a network topology database to determine a geolocation of each of the plurality of network nodes.
However, Wolcott teaches determining the telemetry source's signal strength with respect to each of the plurality of network nodes; accessing a network topology database to determine a geolocation of each of the plurality of network nodes (call management device 100 may use converged topology information 102 to determine which portions of the network will be used if the mobile device continues the call from the access point and which portions of the network will be used… call management device 100 may receive the DOCSIS telemetry information, such as DOCSIS PNM telemetry information 104 for each of the determined portions of the network….The DOCSIS telemetry information 104 may comprise telemetry information for a plurality of devices. The DOCSIS telemetry information 104 may comprise a corresponding location (e.g., or region or portion of the network) for one or more of the plurality of devices. In some implementations, the call management device 100 may determine and/or associate location information with the DOCSIS telemetry information 104. If the DOCSIS telemetry information 104 indicates a particular network device (e.g., optical node, amplifier, splitter, router, multiplexer, modem), the call management device 100 may determine a data indicative of a location (e.g., region, topology location) of the network device, a handoff parameter…network topology…For example, the wireless telemetry information…signal strength…associated with a wireless access point - Wolcott ¶20 & ¶47).
Tashiro discloses a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system. Wolcott teaches systems and methods for proactive call management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tashiro, a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system, with systems and methods for proactive call management, as taught by Wolcott, with a reasonable expectation of success to determine whether transmission quality of the call may be improved by connecting a user device to a different network device in the network topology, see Wolcott ¶3 for details, and because the network connectivity and communication mapping disclosed in Wolcott can apply to the vehicle to server communication system of Tashiro as the claim limitations here are directed to network topology.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro, in view of Grigsby, as per claim 7, and further in view of Bae et al., US-20100321204-A1, and Park, hereinafter referred to as Bae.
As per claim 11
Tashiro does not specifically disclose wherein prior to transmitting the converged telemetry data to the vehicle.
However, Bae teaches wherein prior to transmitting the converged telemetry data to the vehicle (When a subscription for a client's telemetry data is received, the telemetry subscription service (TSS) 110 first analyzes the subscription with respect to other subscriptions for the same client application, Client Telemetry Aggregator 175 receives telemetry data transmissions… buffers the data transmissions for a short period before forwarding to a Telemetry Receiver 115…. a Telemetry Aggregator 125. The Telemetry Aggregator performs a function similar to that of the Client Telemetry Aggregator 175 - Bae ¶17 & ¶19).
Tashiro discloses a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system. Bae teaches a system and method that support the scalable acquisition of telemetry data from instrumented entities over a wireless network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tashiro, a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system, with a system and method that support the scalable acquisition of telemetry data from instrumented entities over a wireless network, as taught by Bae, with a reasonable expectation of success to acquire telemetry data from instrumented entities that overcomes the shortcomings of the prior art, see Bae ¶5 for details.
Tashiro does not specifically disclose receiving an indication of a subscription of the vehicle to the data queue, wherein the subscription defines data relevant to the vehicle based on one or more automated functions performed by the vehicle.
However, Park teaches receiving an indication of a subscription of the vehicle to the data queue, wherein the subscription defines data relevant to the vehicle based on one or more automated functions performed by the vehicle (a system and method of controlling network traffic for a network in a device…The one or more recipient units are configured to send respective subscription requests for data originating from the one or more provider units, via the network. A controller is in communication with the plurality of units. The controller is also in communication with a queue module configured to store the respective subscription requests – Park ¶2).
Tashiro discloses a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system. Park teaches a system and method of controlling network traffic for a network in a device that has a plurality of units.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tashiro, a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system, with a system and method of controlling network traffic for a network in a device that has a plurality of units, as taught by Park, with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the functioning of the device 12 by accommodating significant changes in the network flow's behavior at runtime and increasing efficiency in computation, see Park ¶17 for details.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro, in view of Grigsby, as per claim 7, and further in view of Smith et al., US-20160366180-A1, hereinafter referred to as Smith.
As per claim 12
Tashiro does not specifically disclose wherein prior to transmitting the converged telemetry data to the vehicle, anonymizing the converged telemetry data.
However, Smith teaches wherein prior to transmitting the converged telemetry data to the vehicle, anonymizing the converged telemetry data (Such telemetry reports after generation… until the reports are provided to a given reporting node 125, which may aggregate reports and provide them to external verifier 140, via an anonymizer network 130…shown may be a TOR network. – Smith ¶22).
Tashiro discloses a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system. Smith teaches systems and methods for aggregating telemetry data obtained from IoT devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tashiro, a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system, with systems and methods for aggregating telemetry data obtained from IoT devices, as taught by Smith, with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent a MITM attacker from completely overtaking every node in the IoT network, see Smith ¶21 for details.
Claims 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro, in view of Grigsby, as per claim 7, and further in view of Balter et al., US-20150279213-A1, hereinafter referred to as Balter.
As per claim 13
Tashiro does not specifically disclose wherein receiving the telemetry data from a plurality of telemetry data sources comprises receiving available parking space information from a parking facility, and wherein the method further comprising: determining an unavailability of a parking space at the parking facility for the at least one vehicle based on an estimated arrival times; and providing the determination to the data queue of the vehicle.
However, Balter teaches wherein receiving the telemetry data from a plurality of telemetry data sources comprises receiving available parking space information from a parking facility, and wherein the method further comprising: determining an unavailability of a parking space at the parking facility for the at least one vehicle based on an estimated arrival times; and providing the determination to the data queue of the vehicle (one notification comprising an indication of a possibility of an occupied parking spot being vacated by an occupier whose vehicle is parked in a parking spot meeting the parking constraint; and determining predicted arrival times of the seeker and the occupier at the occupied parking spot, wherein determining predicted arrival times of the occupier at the occupied parking spot comprises estimating the predicted arrival time based on at least one of the time it takes the occupier to arrive at the parking spot and the time it takes the occupier's vehicle to leave the parking-spot - Balter Claim 1).
Tashiro discloses a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system. Balter teaches systems for providing parking-related information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tashiro, a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system, with systems for providing parking-related information, as taught by Balter, with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce time and resources spent looking for a parking spot and generally reduce distance between the seeker's destination and the parking spot, see Balter ¶6 for details.
As per claim 14
Tashiro does not specifically disclose further comprising: receiving available parking space information associated with a second parking facility; and providing the available parking space information associated with the second parking facility to the data queue of the vehicle.
However, Balter teaches further comprising: receiving available parking space information associated with a second parking facility; and providing the available parking space information associated with the second parking facility to the data queue of the vehicle (one notification comprising an indication of a possibility of an occupied parking spot being vacated by an occupier whose vehicle is parked in a parking spot meeting the parking constraint; and determining predicted arrival times of the seeker and the occupier at the occupied parking spot, wherein determining predicted arrival times of the occupier at the occupied parking spot comprises estimating the predicted arrival time based on at least one of the time it takes the occupier to arrive at the parking spot and the time it takes the occupier's vehicle to leave the parking-spot - Balter Claim 1).
Tashiro discloses a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system. Balter teaches systems for providing parking-related information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tashiro, a vehicle travel control device and a vehicle travel control system, with systems for providing parking-related information, as taught by Balter, with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce time and resources spent looking for a parking spot and generally reduce distance between the seeker's destination and the parking spot, see Balter ¶6 for details.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa, US-9684722-B2, in view of Bogolea et al., US-20170337508-A1, hereinafter referred to as Nakagawa, and Bogolea.
As per claim 15
Nakagawa discloses [a] method of providing geographically-converged telemetry data, the method comprising (filtering the received speed information… for each filtering condition whose status stored in the storage unit is valid and outputting a result of the filtering to a traffic control server connected to the server apparatus via a network – Nakagawa Claim 1):
receiving telemetry data from a plurality of telemetry data sources, wherein the plurality of telemetry data sources include at least one vehicle (receive speed information indicating speed of vehicles detected by speed sensors…filtering the received speed information… for each filtering condition whose status stored in the storage unit is valid and outputting a result of the filtering to a traffic control server connected to the server apparatus via a network – Nakagawa Claim 1);
generating a feed of converged telemetry data relevant to the traffic control system (filtering the received speed information… for each filtering condition whose status stored in the storage unit is valid and outputting a result of the filtering to a traffic control server connected to the server apparatus via a network – Nakagawa Claim 1);
transmitting the feed of converged telemetry data to the traffic control system for enabling the traffic control system to make a traffic control decision based at least in part on the relevant telemetry data (filtering the received speed information… for each filtering condition whose status stored in the storage unit is valid and outputting a result of the filtering to a traffic control server connected to the server apparatus via a network – Nakagawa Claim 1).
Nakagawa does not specifically disclose determining geolocations associated with the telemetry data; associating geolocation metadata with the corresponding telemetry data based on the determined geolocations; identifying telemetry data relevant to a traffic control system based at least in part on the geolocation metadata.
However, Bogolea teaches determining geolocations associated with the telemetry data; associating geolocation metadata with the corresponding telemetry data based on the determined geolocations; identifying telemetry data relevant to a traffic control system based at least in part on the geolocation metadata (Upon receipt of images from the robotic system…compare the actual position and orientation of the robotic system at the time the raw image was captured (e.g., as stored in image metadata) to the target location and target orientation defined in a nearest waypoint - Bogolea ¶40).
Nakagawa discloses a server apparatus, a filtering method, and a filtering program. Bogolea teaches a robotic system that captures images of the environment around it.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nakagawa, a server apparatus, a filtering method, and a filtering program, with a robotic system that captures images of the environment around it, as taught by Bogolea, with a reasonable expectation of success to determine the presence, orientation, and/or position of objects with a relatively high degree of accuracy, and to improve identification, see Bogolea ¶15 & ¶106 for details.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa, in view of Bogolea, as per claim 15, and further in view of Publicover, US-20080012726-A1, hereinafter referred to as Publicover.
As per claim 16
Nakagawa does not specifically disclose wherein the traffic control decision is associated with at least one of: controlling a traffic signal light; controlling a pedestrian crossing signal; and altering swing lane direction.
However, Publicover teaches wherein the traffic control decision is associated with at least one of: controlling a traffic signal light; controlling a pedestrian crossing signal; and altering swing lane direction (manage freeway traffic so that vehicles are grouped in pods, in step 1040 the TCD or traffic control system determines the optimal position in the pod based on the driver destination, rating or a combination of the same. Depending on the determination in step 1040 the driver receives instructions or the vehicle is controlled by the traffic control system and enters the pod in step 1045 - Publicover ¶11 & ¶74).
Nakagawa discloses a server apparatus, a filtering method, and a filtering program. Publicover teaches systems and methods for controlling traffic on expressways.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nakagawa, a server apparatus, a filtering method, and a filtering program, with systems and methods for controlling traffic on expressways, as taught by Publicover, with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce traffic congestion, and to provide for more fuel-efficient transportation, see Publicover ¶5 & ¶7 for details.
As per claim 17
Nakagawa does not specifically disclose further comprising: analyzing the telemetry data to determine the traffic control decision, wherein the traffic control decision provides at least one of: optimized vehicular traffic flow; optimized pedestrian traffic flow; reduced energy consumption; and avoidance of a hazard; and transmit the traffic control decision to the traffic control system.
However, Publicover teaches further comprising: analyzing the telemetry data to determine the traffic control decision, wherein the traffic control decision provides at least one of: optimized vehicular traffic flow; optimized pedestrian traffic flow; reduced energy consumption; and avoidance of a hazard; and transmit the traffic control decision to the traffic control system (manage freeway traffic so that vehicles are grouped in pods, in step 1040 the TCD or traffic control system determines the optimal position in the pod based on the driver destination, rating or a combination of the same. Depending on the determination in step 1040 the driver receives instructions or the vehicle is controlled by the traffic control system and enters the pod in step 1045 - Publicover ¶11 & ¶74).
Nakagawa discloses a server apparatus, a filtering method, and a filtering program. Publicover teaches systems and methods for controlling traffic on expressways.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nakagawa, a server apparatus, a filtering method, and a filtering program, with systems and methods for controlling traffic on expressways, as taught by Publicover, with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce traffic congestion, and to provide for more fuel-efficient transportation, see Publicover ¶5 & ¶7 for details.
As per claim 18
Nakagawa does not specifically disclose wherein to determine the traffic control decision for providing optimized vehicular traffic flow, further comprising: determining a traffic control decision that holistically optimizes vehicular traffic flow for a plurality of vehicles; or determining a traffic control decision that optimizes vehicular traffic flow for a single vehicle based on a service subscribed to by the single vehicle.
However, Publicover teaches wherein to determine the traffic control decision for providing optimized vehicular traffic flow, further comprising: determining a traffic control decision that holistically optimizes vehicular traffic flow for a plurality of vehicles; or determining a traffic control decision that optimizes vehicular traffic flow for a single vehicle based on a service subscribed to by the single vehicle (manage freeway traffic so that vehicles are grouped in pods, in step 1040 the TCD or traffic control system determines the optimal position in the pod based on the driver destination, rating or a combination of the same. Depending on the determination in step 1040 the driver receives instructions or the vehicle is controlled by the traffic control system and enters the pod in step 1045 - Publicover ¶11 & ¶74).
Nakagawa discloses a server apparatus, a filtering method, and a filtering program. Publicover teaches systems and methods for controlling traffic on expressways.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nakagawa, a server apparatus, a filtering method, and a filtering program, with systems and methods for controlling traffic on expressways, as taught by Publicover, with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce traffic congestion, and to provide for more fuel-efficient transportation, see Publicover ¶5 & ¶7 for details.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa, in view of Bogolea, as per claim 15, and further in view of Wolcott.
As per claim 19
Nakagawa does not specifically disclose further comprising: for each instance of received telemetry data, determining a network node used by the telemetry source to transmit the telemetry data; accessing a network topology database to determine a geolocation of the network node; and identifying the geolocation of the network node as the geolocation associated with the telemetry data.
However, Wolcott teaches further comprising: for each instance of received telemetry data, determining a network node used by the telemetry source to transmit the telemetry data; accessing a network topology database to determine a geolocation of the network node; and identifying the geolocation of the network node as the geolocation associated with the telemetry data (call management device 100 may use converged topology information 102 to determine which portions of the network will be used if the mobile device continues the call from the access point and which portions of the network will be used… call management device 100 may receive the DOCSIS telemetry information, such as DOCSIS PNM telemetry information 104 for each of the determined portions of the network….The DOCSIS telemetry information 104 may comprise telemetry information for a plurality of devices. The DOCSIS telemetry information 104 may comprise a corresponding location (e.g., or region or portion of the network) for one or more of the plurality of devices. In some implementations, the call management device 100 may determine and/or associate location information with the DOCSIS telemetry information 104. If the DOCSIS telemetry information 104 indicates a particular network device (e.g., optical node, amplifier, splitter, router, multiplexer, modem), the call management device 100 may determine a data indicative of a location (e.g., region, topology location) of the network device, a handoff parameter…network topology…For example, the wireless telemetry information…signal strength…associated with a wireless access point - Wolcott ¶20 & ¶47).
Nakagawa discloses a server apparatus, a filtering method, and a filtering program. Wolcott teaches systems and methods for proactive call management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nakagawa, a server apparatus, a filtering method, and a filtering program, with systems and methods for proactive call management, as taught by Wolcott, with a reasonable expectation of success to determine whether transmission quality of the call may be improved by connecting a user device to a different network device in the network topology, see Wolcott ¶3 for details, and because the network connectivity and communication mapping disclosed in Wolcott can apply to the vehicle data filtering system of Nakagawa as the claim limitations here are directed to network topology.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIS ASIM SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-6426. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:30 M-F EST.
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, Fadey S. Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/F.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights