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 .
Reissue Application
This application seeks to reissue US Patent No. 11,610,229 (“the ‘229 patent”). In an August 05, 2026 response to the February 05, 2026 non-final Office action (“NFOA”), the applicant has amended claims 1, 9, 13, 15, and 16. Claims 1-16 are pending.
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions. For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,610,229 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant’s Response to the NFOA
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, and 13-16 were rejected in the NFOA under § 101 for being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more. NFOA at 4-7. The applicant’s arguments traversing this rejection are not persuasive.
The applicant submits that the claims do not recite a mental process because the “human mind is not equipped to construct [the claimed] data structures, to index positional data against them, or to resolve correspondences across them.” Remarks at 10. This is not persuasive. The steps referred to by the applicant describe routine data lookup and comparison operations. While they involve the use of a computer, they only involve generic and well-known computer components and data structures. The underlying operations are ones that could be performed mentally, or by a person with pen and paper. These steps are therefore abstract ideas. “[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The applicant further submits that “the vehicle itself” is “navigated in accordance with the vehicle data … which is a physical act performed on a tangible vehicle … and therefore cannot be performed in the human mind at all.” Remarks at 10. But this claim language (the “navigating” step) only describes a step that a human performs based on a route recommendation – that is, based on instructions. And as described below, certain language in the “navigating” limitation does not limit the scope of the claims. A limitation requiring a human to “follow rules or instructions,” which is what this claim limitation amounts to, is an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.02(a)(2)(II). Therefore the claims recite mental processes and following instructions, as described in the NFOA.
The applicant argues that even if the claims recite abstract ideas, they integrate that abstract idea into a practical application. Remarks at 11. For example, the applicant argues that conventional technology “lacks any mechanism for navigating a vehicle in a manner that increases the impressions its exterior messaging receives.” Id. This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. As described under the Claim Interpretation heading below, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims does not require any limitation relating to navigating the vehicle in a manner that increases impressions of its exterior messaging. Therefore even if this feature provided a practical application of the abstract idea (which the examiner makes no comment on at this point), the feature is not included in the scope of any of the claims.
Therefore, based on the scope of the claims as they are currently presented, the claims are drawn to an invention that is not eligible under § 101.
35 U.S.C. § 251 Rejections
Claims 1-16 were rejected in the NFOA twice under § 251: once because of a defective declaration, and again for failing to comply with the original patent requirement. NFOA at 8-9. These rejections have not been overcome.
The applicant has not filed a replacement declaration. The objection and claim rejection based on this issue are maintained.
Claim 1 has been amended to now recite “wherein navigation of the vehicle in accordance with the vehicle data is configured to increase visual impressions of the exterior graphic message.” Claims 9, 15, and 16 include similar language. The applicant submits that because of this language, the claims now comply with the original patent requirement of § 251. The examiner disagrees. For reasons given under the “Claim Interpretation” heading below, this language does not limit any of claims 1-16. Therefore claims 1-16 do not comply with the original patent requirement of § 251 because their broadest reasonable interpretation does not require receiving a “route recommendation” that “corresponds to vehicle routes associated with a higher number of viewing impressions of the exterior graphic messaging by occupants of other vehicles than other potential vehicle routes.” This rejection is maintained.
Prior Art Rejections
The recent claim amendments overcome the prior art rejections that were made in the NFOA. New grounds of rejection are presented below.
Claim Interpretation
The claims of this reissue application have been amended to replace the original term “route recommendation” with the new term “vehicle data.” Despite this, the term “vehicle data” is interpreted as being a route recommendation. The claims recite “sending .. to the computation platform, a request for vehicle data”, “receiving, from the computation platform, the vehicle data”, and “navigating the vehicle in accordance with the vehicle data.” The specification of the ‘229 patent only describes sending a “request” for, “receiving from the computing platform”, and “navigating the vehicle in accordance with” a route recommendation. See the ‘229 patent at 7:38-60. In light of this, the only interpretation of the claims that is consistent with the written description is that the “vehicle data” is a route recommendation.
Claim 1 is drawn to a “method for navigating a vehicle” and includes the step of “navigating the vehicle in accordance with the vehicle data.” The specification of the ‘229 patent only describes that this step is performed by a human driver. See e.g. the ‘229 patent at 7:53-60. The claim further recites that “navigating the vehicle in accordance with the vehicle data is configured to increase visual impressions of the exterior graphic messaging.” This language is indefinite (see § 112(b) rejection below) and is not taken to limit the claim.
The claim does not describe that the “vehicle data” (i.e., the route recommendation) is generated in a manner such that it recommends a route that corresponds to a higher number of impressions. Instead, the claim describes that the human-performed step of navigating the vehicle “is configured to increase visual impressions.” Despite the indefiniteness in this language (described below), the claim language reciting that a human-performed method step is configured to increase impressions is understood as describing the intended outcome of the step. Language in a method claim that “simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited” is not given patentable weight. MPEP 2111.04(I).
Method claim 9 includes similar language and is interpreted in the same way as claim 1.
Claim 15 is drawn to a mobile device. Claim 15 recites that “the vehicle data is determined based on a comparison of a segment mile database table to indexed GPS data and the traffic volume data.” The specification of the ‘229 patent describes that these functions are performed at a remote computing platform device that is different from the mobile device. See e.g. ‘229 patent at 7:38-60. Because this function is performed by a different device, it does not provide any functional or structural limitation on the mobile device that claim 15 is drawn to. Therefore this language does not limit claim 15. See MPEP 2111.04(I) (the scope of an apparatus claim is not limited “by claim language that does not limit [the] claim to a particular structure.”). To overcome this, the examiner recommends amending claim 15 to be drawn to a system comprising the mobile device and a computing platform, and reciting that the vehicle data is determined by the computing platform.
Claim 15 also recites that “navigating the vehicle in accordance with the vehicle data is configured to increase visual impressions of the exterior graphic messaging.” This does not provide any structural limitation on the mobile device that claim 15 is drawn to. This language does not describe that the mobile device of claim 15 is “configured” to perform a particular function. Instead, as described above, it recites that “navigating the vehicle” is “configured” to achieve a certain outcome. But this navigating is performed by a human driver, not by the mobile device. This language appears to only describe the intended result of “generating recommendation information.” As such, is not limiting (see MPEP 2111.04(I)) and is indefinite, as language describing an intended result in an apparatus claim is indefinite because it “does not provide a clear cut indication of scope because it impose[s] no structural limits on the” claim. MPEP 2173.05(g). Even if the “configured to” clause is understood as placing a limitation on the content of the “vehicle data,” this data is not generated by the mobile device, nor does the mobile device do anything with this data other than display it1. As a limitation on the content of information, this language may alternatively be understood as non-limiting printed matter. See MPEP 2111.05.
Claim 16 includes similar language and is interpreted in the same way.
Objection, 37 CFR 1.173 – Insufficient Explanation of Support
This application is objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(c), which requires “an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.” In the Remarks accompanying the current response, the applicant has not provided a sufficient showing of where support exists for the claim amendments. While the applicant has cited various passages of the ‘229 patent as supporting the amendments, these passages do not appear to provide support for certain limitations. See the § 112(a) rejections below.
Objection, 37 CFR 1.175 – Defective Reissue Declaration
This application is objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.175. The declaration that was filed with this application states that the “application is a broadening reissue, and the Applicant seeks to broaden claim 1, 9, 15, and 16.” This is not a sufficient error statement. When a reissue application is filed to correct errors in the claims, the errors in the claims must be identified in the declaration “by reference to the specific claim(s) and the specific claim language wherein lies the error.” MPEP 1414 II. The applicant is required to submit a supplemental declaration that conforms to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.175.
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 1-3, 5, 7-10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is representative, and includes the limitations “sending … mobility data related to at least locations of the vehicle at a plurality of times”; “sending … a request for vehicle data [that is, a route recommendation: see ‘229 patent throughout] … based on the mobility data and traffic volume”; “receiving … the vehicle data …[that] is determined based on a comparison of a segment mile database table to indexed GPS data and traffic volume data; and navigating the vehicle in accordance with the vehicle data.” The claimed invention involves one party in a vehicle that informs another party of its locations, then requests a route recommendation based on past locations and traffic volume. Generating this recommendation involves comparing data in a table to GPS data and traffic data, which is something a human could do mentally or with a pencil and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Upon receiving the requested route recommendation, the party in the vehicle navigates the vehicle by following the recommended route, which are instructions. These amounts to mental processes of observation and evaluation of information, and managing interactions by following instructions, which is an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.02(a)(2)(II).
The claims include no limitations outside of the abstract idea that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Outside of the above-described abstract idea, the claims only recite the use of known technology, including a mobile device having a GPS receiver which is associated with the vehicle, and the device communicating with a computation platform using wireless signals. These limitations only generally link the abstract idea to a technological field. See MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no improvement to the technological field recited in the claims; instead, the claims only apply the judicial exception through the use of known computing tools. MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims include language describing that navigating the vehicle according to the vehicle data “is configured to increase visual impressions of the external graphic messaging.” However, for reasons given above under the “Claim Interpretation” heading, this language does not limit the scope of these claims, and as such cannot be said to provide an inventive concept that renders the claims patent eligible.
The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Outside of the abstract idea, the claims recite a GPS receiver and mobile device associated with the vehicle that performs two-way communication with a computation platform using wireless signals. Official notice is taken that these elements were widely known at the time this invention was filed, thus amount to only well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). As such, these claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 9, 15, and 16 are also directed to abstract ideas without significantly more for reasons similar to those given above. Claims 15 and 16 include additional limitations, requiring a device that includes a display, processor, and a software application. Official notice is taken that these elements are likewise well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Other than claims 4-6, 11, and 12 (see below), the dependent claims recite only further abstract ideas and/or well-known elements that neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites “the vehicle mobility data … is used to identify one or more of a plurality of road segments in which the vehicle was present and a number of potential visual impressions of the vehicle within the one or more of the plurality of road segments is estimated using traffic volume data associated with the plurality of road segments.” Claim 11 includes similar language. Estimating potential visual impression based on past vehicle locations and on traffic data describes a practical application that falls outside of the abstract idea. See e.g. ‘229 patent, 6:46-7:14. As such, these claims and their dependents are not rejected under §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-16 recite that vehicle data is determined based on “a comparison of a segment mile database table to indexed GPS data and the traffic volume data.” This is not supported in the written description. The specification of the ’229 patent describes generating a route recommendation (that is, “vehicle data”) by merging vehicle GPS data with “segmented traffic volume data.” See ‘229 patent at 7:38-52. This segmented traffic volume data is “formulated from the segment mile table and traffic volume data.” Id.. That is, the segmented traffic volume data is derived by “referencing the segment mile table and the traffic volume data.” Id. at 6:39-41.
According to the specification, generating the vehicle data is not based on a “comparison” of the segment mile database table to GPS data and traffic volume data. Instead, it is based on a comparison of GPS data and segmented traffic volume. While the segmented traffic volume is derived based on the segment mile table, this traffic volume data is different from the segment mile table. The specification does not disclose that the vehicle data is determined based on a comparison of the segment mile database table with GPS data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “navigating the vehicle in accordance with the vehicle data.” The specification of the ‘229 patent only describes that this step is performed by a human driver. See e.g. the ‘229 patent at 7:53-60. The claim further recites that “navigating the vehicle in accordance with the vehicle data is configured to increase visual impressions of the exterior graphic messaging.” Requiring that a human-performed method step be “configured to” cause a certain outcome renders the claim indefinite. “Configured to” language such as this is typically reserved for functional limitations in an apparatus claim. But claim 1 is drawn to a method, and the step in question is performed by a person. The bounds of this language cannot be accurately determined. Claim 9 is indefinite for similar reasons.
Claims 1-16 recite that the “vehicle data is determined based on a comparison of a segment mile database table to indexed GPS data”. This is unclear.
It is not clear how the term “segment mile” limits the claim. The specification describes the “segment mile database table 122” as being “indexed by road segment ID.” See Fig. 5 and its description. Each segment identifies a particular portion of a roadway. Id. But it is not clear what the scope of a “segment mile database table” is. Does this place a limitation on the lengths of the segments that are defined in the table? Does it require that the segments be defined in units of miles, and not other units such as kilometers? It is not clear what would and what would not be considered to be a “segment mile” table, therefore the scope of this limitation cannot be accurately determined.
In addition, the claims recite comparing this table to “indexed GPS data.” It is not clear if this refers to the vehicle mobility data that was transmitted by the mobile device, or if this could include any GPS data, including data from other vehicles. The specification describes that route recommendations are produced by merging “vehicle A GPS” data (that is, the GPS data from the requesting vehicle) with segmented traffic data. See the ‘229 patent at 7:38-52. But the claim does not equate the “indexed GPS data” to the mobility data that was received from the mobile device, and it is not clear if this is what the claim requires. This language is therefore indefinite.
Claims 15 recites that “navigating the vehicle in accordance with the vehicle data is configured to increase visual impressions of the exterior graphic messaging.” But claim 15 is drawn to a mobile device, and the specification describes that the “navigating” is performed by a human, not by the mobile device. This language appears to only describe the intended result of a structural limitation, and as such is indefinite (an intended result in an apparatus claim is indefinite because it “does not provide a clear cut indication of scope because it imposed no structural limits on the” claim. MPEP 2173.05(g)). Claim 16 is indefinite for similar reasons.
Claim Rejection, 35 USC § 251 – Defective Reissue Declaration
Claims 1-16 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claim Rejection, 35 USC § 251 – New Matter
Claims 1-16 are rejected for adding new matter to the patent. See the §112(a) rejection above.
Claim Rejection, 35 USC § 251 – Original Patent
Claims 1-16 are rejected for violating the original patent requirement of §251. Claims of a reissue application “must be for the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention in the original patent.” MPEP 1412.01 I. To satisfy the original patent requirement where a new invention is sought by reissue, "… the specification must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention." Id., quoting Antares Pharma Inc., v. Medac Pharma Inc. and Medac GMBH, 771 F.3d 1354, 1363.
The independent claims of this application have been broadened to cover an invention that is not described in the specification as a separate invention. Original claim 1 of the ‘229 patent recites that the mobile device requests and receives a route recommendation that “corresponds to vehicle routes associated with a higher number of viewing impression of the exterior graphic messaging by the occupants of other vehicles than other potential vehicle routes,” and navigating the vehicle in accordance with this route recommendation. Claim 1 has been amended in this reissue application to now only recite receiving and requesting “vehicle data,” and navigating according to this vehicle data. Claims 9, 15, and 16 have been amended similarly. While the claims include language describing an intended result of this “navigating,” this is not included in the BRI of the claims, as described above. By removing the limitations describing that a route recommendation is received that “corresponds to vehicle routes associated with a higher number of viewing impression of the exterior graphic messaging by the occupants of other vehicles than other potential vehicle routes,” the amended claims violate the original patent requirement.
The ‘229 patent describes throughout that the invention relates to increasing visual impressions of graphics that are displayed on the exterior of the vehicle. Estimating and increasing impressions is clearly “what the patentee objectively intended as the invention.” MPEP 1412.01 I. The specification does not clearly and unequivocally disclose a separate, broader invention of navigating a vehicle using data that is unrelated to viewing impressions, which is the invention that the BRI of these claims covers. Because the claims have been amended to cover this broader invention, they violate the original patent requirement of §251.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4, 6-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dukach, US 20040036622 in view of Lobsenz, US 20130246181, and further in view of Tajima, JP 2005141535 (reference below is made to the provided English translation).
Claim 1: Dukach discloses a method for navigating a vehicle configured with exterior graphic messaging intended for viewing by occupants of other vehicles (While this preamble language does not limit the claim, this is taught by Dukach. See Dukach Abstract and ¶396), the method including:
sending, from a mobile device associated with the vehicle and including a GPS receiver, wireless signals to a computation platform wherein the wireless signals include vehicle mobility data related to at least locations of the vehicle at a plurality of times wherein the vehicle mobility data is generated by a mobile device application executing on the mobile device (The mobile unit location history is mobility data that describes past locations of the vehicle, which are determined by a GPS receiver. Id. Abstract, ¶¶ 134 and 158. This location information is transmitted from the mobile device (therefore by software executing on the mobile device) to a central computation platform. Id. ¶143. Location information is sent by wireless signal. Id. ¶145. See also ¶391, where the vehicle reports its location when determining compensation for a journey.);
sending, from the mobile device to the computation platform, a request for vehicle data for the vehicle, wherein the request is generated by the mobile device application and wherein the vehicle data is based on the vehicle mobility data (A driver of a vehicle that contains external imaging is compensated for completing a particular trip based on times and locations of the vehicle and the value of displaying the external imaging. Id. ¶390. Upon completion of this journey, a routing recommendation, or vehicle data, is sent to the driver, indicating different routes that could be taken and the amount that those routes would earn the driver. Id. ¶394. Because the initial journey and route are determined based on a request from the driver (via the mobile device) – see ¶396 – the delivery of the vehicle data to the driver is based on receiving this request from the mobile device.);
receiving, from the computation platform, the vehicle data at the mobile device; and navigating the vehicle in accordance with the vehicle data provided by the mobile device application, wherein navigating the vehicle in accordance with the vehicle data is configured to increase visual impressions of the exterior graphic messaging (The mobile unit receives and displays the route recommendation, or vehicle data, and the driver may “alter his driving patterns” (that is, navigate the vehicle in the future) in accordance with this information to increase visual impressions of the exterior messaging. Id. ¶¶ 394-395. See the “Claim Interpretation” heading and § 112(b) rejections above.).
Dukach fails to disclose that the vehicle data is based on traffic volume data.
However, Lobsenz discloses determining a number of exposures to a vehicle-mounted advertisement based on the traffic volume data (Traffic volume data is used to estimate exposure to a vehicle-mounted advertisements of various routes. Lobsenz ¶¶ 11-12 and 19).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dukach with teachings found in Lobsenz. Dukach estimates the amount of money that a driver could have earned if a different route were taken. See Dukach ¶394. The POSITA would recognize that this estimation would be improved by taking into account traffic volume along those alternate routes, as taught in Lobsenz. Together, these references would have suggested to the POSITA to also take into account traffic volume data in the vehicle data (i.e. the route recommendation) when presenting alternate routes, as this would enable greater profit for the driver, greater revenue for the advertiser, and more accurate targeting and impression estimation. See e.g. Dukach ¶394 and Lobsenz ¶¶14-15. When Dukach is modified to rely in part on traffic volume when making route recommendations, the vehicle data is based on mobility data (Dukach ¶391) and traffic volume data (Lobsenz ¶¶11-12 and 19).
Dukach-Lobsenz fails to disclose that the vehicle data is determined based on a comparison of a segment mile database table to indexed GPS data and the traffic volume data.
Tajima discloses determining visual impressions of a vehicle-mounted advertisement by a comparison of a segment mile database table to indexed GPS data and traffic volume data (A series of segments of a road is defined, and traffic volume for each segment of the road is determined. See pg. 8, ¶¶ 2-3 and Figures 3 through 5. The number of impressions of a vehicle-based advertisement is based on comparing this information to the vehicle’s indexed GPS data that describes the road segments and times that the vehicle traveled over. Abstract, pg. 7 ¶ 3, and pg. 10 ¶¶ 3-6. This disclosure falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim language when it is understood in light of the specification. See the “Claim Interpretation” heading and the §112(b) rejection above.).
This disclosure in Tajima would have suggested to the POSITA to modify Dukach-Lobsenz to base its route recommendations (i.e., vehicle data) on the claimed “comparison.” Based on the disclosure in Tajima, the POSITA would have concluded that Dukach-Lobsenz would be improved by using the segmented traffic volume data that is described in Tajima, because this would have provided a more accurate representation of impressions along various routes.
Claim 2: Dukach-Lobsenz-Tajima discloses that the vehicle mobility data includes vehicle location data for the vehicle provided during navigation (Dukach ¶391).
Claim 3: Dukach-Lobsenz-Tajima discloses that the vehicle mobility data is directed to a receiving application programming interface (API) and includes GPS location latitude and longitude and time and date data (Dukach ¶¶272-274 – data is transmitted and received through the platform API. GPS location information (known by the POSITA to include latitude and longitude) and time/date data is transmitted. Id. ¶¶ 134 and 391).
Claim 4: Dukach-Lobsenz-Tajima discloses that the vehicle mobility data included within the wireless signals is sent to a receiving application programming interface (API) gateway (Dukach ¶¶272-274) and used to identify one or more of a plurality of road segments in which the vehicle was present and wherein a number of potential visual impressions of the vehicle within the one or more of the plurality of road segments is estimated using traffic volume data associated with the plurality of road segments (Dukach ¶¶ 390-391, Lobsenz ¶¶ 19 and 49, Tajima Fig. 3-5. The POSITA would likewise have found it obvious to modify Dukach to determine the amount owed to a driver for completed trips using traffic volume data, as taught in Lobsenz and Tajima, as this would result in a more accurate count of impressions.).
Claim 6: Dukach-Lobsenz-Tajima discloses that a set of road segments traversed by the vehicle is determined based upon the mobility data and the number of potential impressions is determined using portions of the traffic volume data corresponding to the set of road segments (Dukach ¶¶ 391-395, Lobsenz ¶¶ 11-12 and 19, Tajima Fig. 3-5).
Claim 7: Dukach-Lobsenz-Tajima discloses sending the request for vehicle data to an application programming interface (API) (Dukach ¶272).
Claim 8: Dukach-Lobsenz-Tajima discloses sending the vehicle mobility data to a receiving application programming interface (API) (Dukach ¶272).
Claim 9: Dukach discloses a method for navigating a vehicle configured with exterior graphic messaging intended for viewing by occupants of other vehicles (While this preamble language does not limit the claim, this is taught by Dukach. See Dukach Abstract and ¶396), the method including:
sending, from a mobile device associated with the vehicle and including a GPS receiver, wireless signals to a computation platform wherein the wireless signals include vehicle mobility data related to at least locations of the vehicle at a plurality of times (The mobile unit location history is mobility data that describes past locations of the vehicle, which are determined by a GPS receiver. Id. Abstract, ¶¶ 134 and 158. This location information is transmitted from the mobile device (therefore by software executing on the mobile device) to a central computation platform. Id. ¶143. Location information is sent by wireless signal. Id. ¶145. See also ¶391, where the vehicle reports its location when determining compensation for a journey.);
sending, from the mobile device to the computation platform, a request for vehicle data for the vehicle wherein the vehicle data is based on the vehicle mobility data (A driver of a vehicle that contains external imaging is compensated for completing a particular trip based on times and locations of the vehicle and the value of displaying the external imaging. Id. ¶390. Upon completion of this journey, a routing recommendation, or vehicle data, is sent to the driver, indicating different routes that could be taken and the amount that those routes would earn the driver. Id. ¶394. Because the initial journey and route are determined based on a request from the driver (via the mobile device) – see ¶396 – the delivery of the vehicle data to the driver is based on receiving this request from the mobile device.);
receiving, from the computation platform, the vehicle data at the mobile device; displaying, on a display of the mobile device, the vehicle data wherein the vehicle is navigated in accordance with the vehicle data (The mobile unit receives and displays the route recommendation, or vehicle data, and the driver navigates the vehicle based thereon. Id. ¶¶ 394-395.).
Dukach fails to disclose that the vehicle data is based on traffic volume data.
However, Lobsenz discloses determining a number of exposures to a vehicle-mounted advertisement based on the traffic volume data (Traffic volume data is used to estimate exposure to a vehicle-mounted advertisements of various routes. Lobsenz ¶¶ 11-12 and 19).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dukach with teachings found in Lobsenz. Dukach estimates the amount of money that a driver could have earned if a different route were taken. See Dukach ¶394. The POSITA would recognize that this estimation would be improved by taking into account traffic volume along those alternate routes, as taught in Lobsenz. Together, these references would have suggested to the POSITA to also take into account traffic volume data in the vehicle data (i.e. the route recommendation) when presenting alternate routes, as this would enable greater profit for the driver, greater revenue for the advertiser, and more accurate targeting and impression estimation. See e.g. Dukach ¶394 and Lobsenz ¶¶14-15. When Dukach is modified to rely in part on traffic volume when making route recommendations, the vehicle data is based on mobility data (Dukach ¶391) and traffic volume data (Lobsenz ¶¶11-12 and 19).
Dukach-Lobsenz fails to disclose that the vehicle data is determined based on a comparison of a segment mile database table to indexed GPS data and the traffic volume data.
Tajima discloses determining visual impressions of a vehicle-mounted advertisement by a comparison of a segment mile database table to indexed GPS data and traffic volume data (A series of segments of a road is defined, and traffic volume for each segment of the road is determined. See pg. 8, ¶¶ 2-3 and Figures 3 through 5. The number of impressions of a vehicle-based advertisement is based on comparing this information to the vehicle’s indexed GPS data that describes the road segments and times that the vehicle traveled over. Abstract, pg. 7 ¶ 3, and pg. 10 ¶¶ 3-6. This disclosure falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim language when it is understood in light of the specification. See the “Claim Interpretation” heading and the §112(b) rejection above.).
This disclosure in Tajima would have suggested to the POSITA to modify Dukach-Lobsenz to base its route recommendations (i.e., vehicle data) on the claimed “comparison.” Based on the disclosure in Tajima, the POSITA would have concluded that Dukach-Lobsenz would be improved by using the segmented traffic volume data that is described in Tajima, because this would have provided a more accurate representation of impressions along various routes.
Claims 10-11 and 13-14: see rejection of claims 2, 4, 7, and 8, respectively.
Claims 15 and 16: the Dukach-Lobsenz-Tajima combination described above discloses a mobile device including:
a GPS receiver (Dukach Abstract and ¶158);
a processor (Dukach Fig. 1: 140); and
a mobile device software application (Dukach Fig. 1: 160) for facilitating navigation of a vehicle configured with exterior graphic messaging intended for viewing by occupants of other vehicles, the mobile device software application being executed by the processor and configured to perform the method of claims 1 and 9, respectively (see rejection of claims 1 and 9 above).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dukach-Lobsenz-Tajima in view of Canaday, US 20060287918.
Claims 5 and 12: Dukach-Lobsenz-Tajima fails to disclose that an estimated number of visual impressions is determined by modifying the number of potential visual impressions in accordance with an environmental filter wherein the environmental filter relates at least to an anticipated visibility of the vehicle to other vehicles present within the one or more of the plurality of road segments.
However, Canaday discloses that an estimated number of visual impressions is determined by modifying a number of potential visual impressions in accordance with an environmental filter wherein the environmental filter relates at least to an anticipated visibility of the vehicle to other vehicles present within one or more of a plurality of road segments (The geographical environment in which a vehicle-mounted advertisement is located (e.g., obscuring landscape features) is used to modify the potential number of visual impressions of the advertisement. ¶35).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dukach-Lobsenz-Tajima with Canaday, the rationale being to generate more accurate impression information.
Relevant Prior Art
Prior art that is not relied upon in the above rejections, but is relevant to the claimed invention, includes:
Rowley, US 20060149461. Rowley teaches a system where a vehicle-based mobile unit sends past location information, or mobility data, to a platform. Rowley Abstract and ¶6. The platform uses this mobility data and traffic volume information to provide, upon request, a route recommendation to the mobile unit. Id. ¶¶ 20-21 and 34.
McGavran, US 20140278070, includes similar disclosures. See ¶¶ 219-226.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HANCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5319. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00am-7:00pm ET.
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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at (571) 270-1367. 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.
/ROBERT J HANCE/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/CHARLES R CRAVER/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 Claim 15 recites “generate recommendation information” based on the vehicle data. However, the actual creation of the route recommendation is performed by the remote computing platform, not the mobile device. See ‘229 patent at 7:38-60. Therefore this “generate” limitation is understood to describe that the mobile device displays the route recommendation (i.e. the “vehicle data”), which is what is described in the specification.
Prosecution Insights