CTNF 19/078,364 CTNF 96564 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 first non-final action is in response to Applicant’s original filing of 03/13/2025. Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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 limitations 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 limitations are: “…a communication device configured to sequentially acquire moving body information…” in claims 1 and 14. “…a processing device configured to calculate predicted moving body information…” in claim 1. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant’s specification ¶ [0041-0046] recite that each of the communication device and processing device “…includes [processing circuitry, storage circuitry, and communication circuitry]…” and are interpreted as such. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite 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 § 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if: STEP 1 : the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or STEP 2 : the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: STEP 2A (PRONG 1) : Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? STEP 2A (PRONG 2) : Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? STEP 2B : Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 5, and 14 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below: STEP 1 : Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories ? Yes. Claims 1, 13, and 14 are directed to corresponding system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium for acquiring and processing moving body information. STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Are the claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea ? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas: Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The method of claim 13 is directed toward a mental process and, therefore, an abstract idea. It consists of: “ An information processing method, comprising: sequentially acquiring moving body information, the moving body information including information that indicates a position of a moving body located in a real world; calculating predicted moving body information based on the moving body information at a predetermined update cycle, the predicted moving body information indicating a predicted position of the moving body at a time after the moving body information was acquired, and evaluating a correspondence relationship between a position of the moving body indicated by the predicted moving body information at a third time and calculated from moving body information that was acquired at a first time and a position of the moving body at the third time acquired from moving body information that was acquired at a second time, the second time being different from the first time; and determining the predetermined update cycle based on the evaluation . ” The “calculating,” “evaluating,” and “determining” steps underlined above are actions that can be performed in the human mind. Particularly, a person can calculate the predicted movement of a moving body according to a predetermined update cycle, evaluate the moving body’s position at first and third times, and determine the update cycle from the evaluation. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961,1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person in a path predicting role can receive a moving body’s position information and determine how frequently the position update cycle changes based on how much distance the moving body covers between different times. Claims 1 and 14 recite similar steps and/or actions as disclosed in claim 13. Claim 1 recites method being performed by a system comprising a communication device and processing device. Claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing a program for executing the method. Therefore, both claims are examined under the same criteria as claim 1 above. STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application: an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application: an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 13 further recites the limitations: An information processing method, comprising: sequentially acquiring moving body information, the moving body information including information that indicates a position of a moving body located in a real world ; … The “acquiring” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving position information for the moving body), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant pre-solution activity. Claims 1 and 14 also commensurately recite the limitation: … a communication device configured to sequentially acquire moving body information, the moving body information including information that indicates a position of a moving body located in a real world… As presented, these steps/actions are mere insignificant pre-solution activity, with the only appreciable difference to claim 13 is “acquiring” being performed by a “communication device.” However, this does not amount to significantly more than the judicial except (see Step 2B below). Therefore, these steps/actions do not help to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. STEP 2B: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements: adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present. Claims 1 and 14 recite the aforementioned steps/actions being performed by Claim 1: “… a communication device configured to sequentially acquire moving body information, the moving body information including information that indicates a position of a moving body located in a real world; and a processing device configured to calculate predicted moving body information based on the moving body information at a predetermined update cycle, the predicted moving body information indicating a predicted position of the moving body at a time after the moving body information was acquired…” Claim 14: “ A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing an information processing program executed by a processing device of an information processing system, the information processing system including a communication device configured to sequentially acquire moving body information, the moving body information including information indicating a position of a moving body located in a real world…” The communication device, processing device, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium to perform the aforementioned steps/actions are used to merely automate the information acquisition, calculation, evaluation, and determination steps/actions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e. WURC) activities that communication devices, processing devices, and non-transitory computer readable storage media are well known to be able to perform. Therefore, these limitations to not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, since claims 1, 13, and 14 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1, 13, and 14 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter. Dependent claims 2-12 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, claims 2-8 further limit claim 1 by evaluating an index number based on the moving body information, where the similarity of different positions at different times provide the basis for the index number and that number informs the determination of the update cycle. These claims only further direct the claimed invention toward the judicial exception without integrating into a practical application or amounting to significantly more. As such, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible. 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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Fridin et al. (US 20200249028 A1) . Regarding claims 1, 13, and 14 , Fridin discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing an information processing program executed by a processing device of an information processing system ( claims 1 and 14; see at least ¶ [0112] and [0129] disclosing non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing computer program code or instructions ), the information processing system including a communication device configured to sequentially acquire moving body information, the moving body information including information indicating a position of a moving body located in a real world ( claims 1, 13, and 14; see at least ¶ [0085-0089] and [0124] disclosing GPS sensors transmitting location and time information for a vehicle and/or user equipment (UE) over a communication network ), and the processing device configured to calculate predicted moving body information based on the moving body information at a predetermined update cycle, the predicted moving body information indicating a predicted position of the moving body at a time after the moving body information was acquired ( claims 1, 13, and 14; see at least ¶ [0046], [0049], [0056], [0066], and [0113-0115] disclosing processors used to extrapolate a predicted location of a vehicle traveling on the road segment ), and the processing device is configured to: evaluate a correspondence relationship between a position of the moving body indicated by the predicted moving body information at a third time and calculated from moving body information that was acquired at a first time and a position of the moving body at the third time acquired from moving body information that was acquired at a second time, the second time being different from the first time ( claims 1, 13, and 14; see at least ¶ [0044-0049] and [0054-0056] disclosing processors used to extrapolate a predicted location of a vehicle and its estimated time of arrival (ETA; third time) based on historical traversal time data (first time) and real-time traversal time (second time) of the vehicle’s current position ); and determining the predetermined update cycle based on the evaluation ( claims 1, 13, and 14; see at least ¶ [0049] and [0056] disclosing a dynamic sampling rate for the vehicle location sensor that reduces its sampling rate according to its time-based extrapolation ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fridin et al. (US 20200249028 A1) in view of Khoury (US 20170255966 A1) . Regarding claim 2 , Fridin discloses determining the predetermined update cycle based on the index value ( see at least ¶ [0056] and [0059-0060] disclosing the dynamic time-based sampling rate for the location sensor is calculated based on a z-score ). While Fridin discloses the map-based dynamic location sampling rate is calculated according to the z-score, which is normally distributed based on the historical ETA ( see at least ¶ [0056] and [0059-0060] ), it does not explicitly disclose evaluating an index value that indicates a degree of similarity between the position of the moving body indicated by the predicted moving body information at the third time and calculated from the moving body information that was acquired at the first time and the position of the moving body at the third time acquired from the moving body information that was acquired at the second time. However, Khoury suggests evaluating an index value that indicates a degree of similarity between the position of the moving body indicated by the predicted moving body information at the third time and calculated from the moving body information that was acquired at the first time and the position of the moving body at the third time acquired from the moving body information that was acquired at the second time ( see at least abstract and ¶ [0030] and [0049] disclosing modifying the frequency of collecting driving information based on a level of precision required to estimate routes driven, mileage, and speed as pre-determined by an accuracy thresholds setting to predict future routes based on historical driving habits ). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the precision and accuracy parameters of Khoury into the time-based positioning prediction system of Fridin with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward tracking and predicting the position of moving vehicles. This would enable and improve efficient use of processing bandwidth and battery while increasing accuracy of the data collected ( see Khoury abstract ). Regarding claim 3 , Fridin suggests the processing device is configured, for each of multiple predetermined zones ( see at least ¶ [0047] disclosing a road network with multiple road segments of varying lengths ), to: calculate the predicted moving body information at the predetermined update cycle ( see at least ¶ [0046-0047], [0049], [0056], [0066], and [0113-0115] disclosing processors used to extrapolate a predicted location of a vehicle traveling on the road segment ); calculate the index value ( see at least ¶ [0056] and [0059-0060] disclosing the dynamic time-based sampling rate for the location sensor is calculated based on a z-score ); and determine the predetermined update cycle based on the index value ( see at least ¶ [0056] and [0059-0060] disclosing the dynamic time-based sampling rate for the location sensor is calculated based on a z-score ). Regarding claim 4 , Fridin suggests the processing device is configured to: calculate the index value ( see at least ¶ [0056] and [0059-0060] disclosing the dynamic time-based sampling rate for the location sensor is calculated based on a z-score ); and determine the predetermined update cycle based on the index value ( see at least ¶ [0056] and [0059-0060] disclosing the dynamic time-based sampling rate for the location sensor is calculated based on a z-score ). Fridin discloses the claimed invention except for the processing device, calculating the index value, and determining the predetermined update cycle based on the index value while the moving body is one of moving bodies, for each of the moving bodies. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the processing device’s calculations and determinations for multiple moving bodies, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co ., 193 USPQ 8. Regarding claim 5 , Fridin suggests the moving body information includes information indicating a type of the moving body ( see at least ¶ [0048] and [0055] disclosing historical data including various types or attributes of the vehicle ), and the processing device is configured to set an initial value of the update cycle for the type of the moving body ( see at least ¶ [0056] and [0059-0060] disclosing the dynamic time-based sampling rate for the location sensor is calculated based on a z-score ). Fridin discloses the claimed invention except for the moving body information including a type of the moving body and setting an initial value of the update cycle while the moving body is one of moving bodies, for each of the moving bodies. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the moving body type information and processing device’s initial value setting for multiple moving bodies, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co ., 193 USPQ 8 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fridin et al. in view of Khoury, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Ewert (US 20220324440 A1) . Regarding claim 6 , while Fridin does not explicitly disclose the second time is earlier than the first time, Fridin discloses extrapolating a predicted location of a vehicle and its estimated time of arrival (ETA) based on historical traversal time data and real-time traversal time of the vehicle’s current position ( see at least ¶ [0044-0049] and [0054-0056] ), such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the appropriate data associated with the corresponding time to compare historical traversal time data to real-time traversal time data to validate ETA extrapolations. Therefore, assigning each time traversal time data as first, second, and third and with particular chronological relation to each other is arbitrary and subject to mere design choice. Fridin does not explicitly disclose the index value indicates a degree of similarity between the predicted moving body information at the third time calculated from the moving body information that was acquired at the first time and first test predicted moving body information, wherein the first test predicted moving body information indicates information on the position of the moving body at the third time and is calculated from first moving body information that was acquired at the second time. However, Khoury suggests the index value indicates a degree of similarity between the predicted moving body information at the third time calculated from the moving body information that was acquired at the first time and first test predicted moving body information, wherein the first test predicted moving body information indicates information on the position of the moving body at the third time and is calculated from first moving body information that was acquired at the second time ( see at least abstract and ¶ [0030] and [0049] disclosing modifying the frequency of collecting driving information based on a level of precision required to estimate routes driven, mileage, and speed as pre-determined by an accuracy thresholds setting to predict future routes based on historical driving habits ). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the precision and accuracy parameters of Khoury into the time-based positioning prediction system of Fridin with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward tracking and predicting the position of moving vehicles. This would enable and improve efficient use of processing bandwidth and battery while increasing accuracy of the data collected ( see Khoury abstract ). The combination of Fridin and Khoury does not explicitly disclose the processing device is configured to extend the predetermined update cycle when the index value is greater than or equal to a predetermined value. However, Ewert suggests the processing device is configured to extend the predetermined update cycle when the index value is greater than or equal to a predetermined value ( see at least ¶ [0018] and [0028] disclosing adjusting the measuring rate for sensors to meet a quality standard limiting value ). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the quality standard value of Ewert into the combination of Fridin and Khoury with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward tracking and predicting the position of moving vehicles. This would help the sensors maintain a high level of quality while also reducing the computational load on the processors and energy required to perform operations ( see Ewert ¶ [0021] ). Regarding claim 7 , while Fridin does not explicitly disclose the second time is later than the first time, Fridin discloses extrapolating a predicted location of a vehicle and its estimated time of arrival (ETA) based on historical traversal time data and real-time traversal time of the vehicle’s current position ( see at least ¶ [0044-0049] and [0054-0056] ), such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the appropriate data associated with the corresponding time to compare historical traversal time data to real-time traversal time data to validate ETA extrapolations. Therefore, assigning each time traversal time data as first, second, and third and with particular chronological relation to each other is arbitrary and subject to mere design choice. Fridin does not explicitly disclose the index value indicates a degree of similarity between the predicted moving body information at the third time calculated from the moving body information that was acquired at the first time and second test predicted moving body information, wherein the second test predicted moving body information indicates information on the position of the moving body at the third time and is calculated from second moving body information that was acquired at the second time. However, Khoury suggests the index value indicates a degree of similarity between the predicted moving body information at the third time calculated from the moving body information that was acquired at the first time and second test predicted moving body information, wherein the second test predicted moving body information indicates information on the position of the moving body at the third time and is calculated from second moving body information that was acquired at the second time ( see at least abstract and ¶ [0030] and [0049] disclosing modifying the frequency of collecting driving information based on a level of precision required to estimate routes driven, mileage, and speed as pre-determined by an accuracy thresholds setting to predict future routes based on historical driving habits ). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the precision and accuracy parameters of Khoury into the time-based positioning prediction system of Fridin with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward tracking and predicting the position of moving vehicles. This would enable and improve efficient use of processing bandwidth and battery while increasing accuracy of the data collected ( see Khoury abstract ). The combination of Fridin and Khoury does not explicitly disclose the processing device is configured to extend the predetermined update cycle when the index value is greater than or equal to a predetermined value. However, Ewert suggests the processing device is configured to extend the predetermined update cycle when the index value is greater than or equal to a predetermined value ( see at least ¶ [0018] and [0028] disclosing adjusting the measuring rate for sensors to meet a quality standard limiting value ). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the quality standard value of Ewert into the combination of Fridin and Khoury with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward tracking and predicting the position of moving vehicles. This would help the sensors maintain a high level of quality while also reducing the computational load on the processors and energy required to perform operations ( see Ewert ¶ [0021] ). Regarding claim 8 , Fridin discloses the third time is a current time ( see at least ¶ [0046] and [0049] disclosing real-time ETA traversal time data is used for extrapolations ), While Fridin does not explicitly disclose the second time is later than the first time and is a time at which the communication device acquired most recent moving body information, Fridin discloses extrapolating a predicted location of a vehicle and its estimated time of arrival (ETA) based on historical traversal time data and real-time traversal time of the vehicle’s current position ( see at least ¶ [0044-0049] and [0054-0056] ), such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the appropriate data associated with the corresponding time to compare historical traversal time data to real-time traversal time data to validate ETA extrapolations. Therefore, assigning each time traversal time data as first, second, and third and with particular chronological relation to each other is arbitrary and subject to mere design choice. Fridin does not explicitly disclose the index value indicates a degree of similarity between the predicted moving body information at the third time calculated from the moving body information that was acquired at the first time and the most recent moving body information acquired by the communication device. However, Khoury suggests the index value indicates a degree of similarity between the predicted moving body information at the third time calculated from the moving body information that was acquired at the first time and the most recent moving body information acquired by the communication device ( see at least abstract and ¶ [0030] and [0049] disclosing modifying the frequency of collecting driving information based on a level of precision required to estimate routes driven, mileage, and speed as pre-determined by an accuracy thresholds setting to predict future routes based on historical driving habits ). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the precision and accuracy parameters of Khoury into the time-based positioning prediction system of Fridin with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward tracking and predicting the position of moving vehicles. This would enable and improve efficient use of processing bandwidth and battery while increasing accuracy of the data collected ( see Khoury abstract ). The combination of Fridin and Khoury does not explicitly disclose the processing device is configured to extend the predetermined update cycle when the index value is greater than or equal to a predetermined value. However, Ewert suggests the processing device is configured to extend the predetermined update cycle when the index value is greater than or equal to a predetermined value ( see at least ¶ [0018] and [0028] disclosing adjusting the measuring rate for sensors to meet a quality standard limiting value ). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the quality standard value of Ewert into the combination of Fridin and Khoury with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward tracking and predicting the position of moving vehicles. This would help the sensors maintain a high level of quality while also reducing the computational load on the processors and energy required to perform operations ( see Ewert ¶ [0021] ). Regarding claims 9, 10, and 11 , the combination of Fridin and Khoury does not explicitly disclose the processing device is configured to shorten the predetermined update cycle when the index value is less than the predetermined value. However, Ewert suggests the processing device is configured to extend the processing device is configured to shorten the predetermined update cycle when the index value is less than the predetermined value ( see at least ¶ [0018] and [0028] disclosing adjusting the measuring rate for sensors to meet a quality standard limiting value ). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the quality standard value of Ewert into the combination of Fridin and Khoury with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward tracking and predicting the position of moving vehicles. This would help the sensors maintain a high level of quality while also reducing the computational load on the processors and energy required to perform operations ( see Ewert ¶ [0021] ). Regarding claim 12 , while Fridin discloses extrapolating a predicted location of a vehicle and its estimated time of arrival (ETA) based on historical traversal time data and real-time traversal time of the vehicle’s current position ( see at least ¶ [0044-0049] and [0054-0056] ), including with attention to periods of time and time blocks for designating historical traversal time data for a given road segment ( see at least ¶ [0046] and [0054] ), the combination of Fridin and Khoury does not explicitly disclose the processing device is configured to modify the update cycle to be longer as an interval between the first time and the second time increases. However, Ewert teaches adjusting the measuring rate for sensors to meet a quality standard limiting value ( see at least ¶ [0018] and [0028] ). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the quality standard value of Ewert into the combination of Fridin and Khoury with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward tracking and predicting the position of moving vehicles. While Ewert does not disclose lengthening measuring rate as an interval between the first time and the second time increases, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that longer time periods would require longer measuring rates to maintain the target quality standard limiting value. This would help the sensors maintain a high level of quality while also reducing the computational load on the processors and energy required to perform operations ( see Ewert ¶ [0021] ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM. 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3669 /NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 2 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 3 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 4 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 5 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 6 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 7 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 8 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 9 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 10 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 11 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 12 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 13 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 14 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 15 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 16 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 17 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 18 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 19 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 20 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 21 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 22 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 23 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 24 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 25 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 26 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 27 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/078,364 Page 28 Art Unit: 3669
Prosecution Insights