DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 19/130,593 filed on September 3, 2026 in which claims 11 and 17 were amended and claims 14, 16, and 19 were cancelled.
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
Claims 11-13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-13, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Philion et al., US Publication 2020/0327338 (hereinafter Philion) in view of Batts et al., US Publication 2020/0238999 (hereinafter Batts), each cited on the Notice of References Cited dated June 11, 2026.
Regarding claim 11, Philion discloses a method for determining a road condition comprising “receiving, by a central computer unit, satellite images of Earth's surface” (Philion ¶ 10) by using a satellite imager to obtain images. Additionally, Philion discloses “extracting, by the central computer unit using digital map data, image information of road surfaces from the received satellite images” (Philion ¶¶ 40, 53) by extracting style information regarding road conditions such as icy or snow covered roads, where some images may be satellite images. Further, Philion discloses “determining, using a learning algorithm, a road condition of route sections of a respective road from the extracted image information of the road surfaces” (Philion ¶¶ 72-72) by translating the image using a new style data, where the new style comes from a learning algorithm and as discussed above, the style data includes road condition data. The act of translating requires determining where to apply these styles. Moreover, Philion discloses “determining a real road condition using recorded vehicle system states of a respective vehicle of the vehicle fleet” (Philion ¶¶ 48-51) by detecting objects in the roadway using all the data that has received, which would include the signals of the sensor system of a respective vehicle as discussed in the rejection to claim 12 above and where images from the vehicle represent a state of that vehicle. Likewise, Philion discloses “creating a road condition model using the recorded vehicle system states of the respective vehicle of the vehicle fleet” (Philion ¶¶ 49, 74; see also ¶¶ 90, 112-114, 119) where the translated image is a model within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Philion discloses that the image may come from a camera in the car (Philion ¶ 49), making it a sensor of the vehicle and it’s images “vehicle system states.” Philion also discloses “creating a further road condition model using the satellite images; and creating a synchronized road condition model using the road condition model, the further road condition model, and further data” (Philion ¶¶ 71-73) by generating multiple styles for detecting road conditions and applying each of them the generate the translated image. The act of adding the style is a form of synchronization under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. Finally, Philion discloses “wherein vehicles of a vehicle fleet are connected to the central computer unit using data technology” (Philion ¶78) where a fleet of vehicles are connected to the system using a wireless connection.
Philion does not appear to explicitly disclose “automatically adjusting driving dynamics during operation of a vehicle of the vehicle fleet based on information determined about the road conditions.”
However, Batts discloses a road condition detection method including the step of “automatically adjusting driving dynamics during operation of a vehicle of the vehicle fleet based on information determined about the road conditions” (Batts ¶ 211) by applying anti-lock braking, which is a form of driving dynamics, based on the detected information.
Philion and Batts are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of road condition detection methods.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Philion and Batts before him or her to modify the road condition determination of Philion to include the use of the road condition map of Batts.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of a fleet of autonomous vehicle. (Batts ¶ 70).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Philion and Batts discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Philion and Batts discloses “training the learning algorithm using ground truth data recorded by the vehicles of the vehicle fleet as the vehicles of the vehicle fleet travel along a respective section of the route sections” (Philion ¶¶ 49-51, 83) by training the algorithm using annotated ground truth data and where the annotations comes from cameras of vehicles as the vehicles are driving on the roads. Further, the combination of Philion and Batts discloses “transmitting the ground truth data to the central computer unit” (Philion ¶ 78) where the data from each vehicle is uploaded to the central server, which would include the ground truth data.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Philion and Batts discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Philion and Batts discloses “determining a real road condition using detected signals of a sensor system of a respective vehicle of the vehicle fleet” (Philion ¶¶ 48-51) by detecting objects in the roadway using all the data it has received, which would include the signals of the sensor system of a respective vehicle as discussed in the rejection to claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Philion and Batts discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Philion does not appear to explicitly disclose “determining a friction coefficient of a respective route section of the route section using a detected slip of a driven vehicle wheel of a respective vehicle of the vehicle fleet.”
However, Batts discloses a road condition detection method including the step of “determining a friction coefficient of a respective route section of the route section using a detected slip of a driven vehicle wheel of a respective vehicle of the vehicle fleet” (Batts ¶ 210) where the friction value is determined using a determined slip ratio. Batts specifies that the slip ratio is generated from sensors on the vehicle as it drives on a road section. (Batts ¶ 93).
Philion and Batts are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of road condition detection methods.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Philion and Batts before him or her to modify the autonomous driving of Philion to include the friction coefficient calculation of Batts.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of a fleet of autonomous vehicle. (Batts ¶ 70).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Philion and Batts discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Philion and Batts discloses “providing, by the central computer unit, the synchronized road condition model to the vehicles of the vehicle fleet” (Philion ¶ 78) where updated data is downloaded to individual vehicles.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Philion and Batts discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Philion and Batts discloses “determining, using the determined real road condition, whether to release or block one or more route sections of the route sections for automated driving operation of vehicles” (Philion ¶ 48) where the images are used to control (i.e., release) automated driving operations of the vehicle.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Philion in view of Cui et al., US Publication 2023/0298460 (hereinafter Cui), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated June 11, 2026.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Philion and Batts discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Philion and Batts does not appear to explicitly disclose “notifying a body responsible for repairing a road of road damage when road damage is detection on a route section of the route sections.”
However, Cui discloses a road condition detection method including the step of “notifying a body responsible for repairing a road of road damage when road damage is detection on a route section of the route sections” (Cui Abstract) by notifying the department of transportation of the need for road repairs.
Philion, Batts, and Cui are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of road condition detection method.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Philion, Batts, and Cui before him or her to modify the road condition detection method of Philion and Batts to include the reporting of the damage for repair of Cui.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an action would have the beneficial result of improving the roads and, therefore, the community.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 3, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 11-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Remarks 4) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 11-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed September 3, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, respectively, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, Applicant first argues “[b]ecause Philion uses recorded images, Philion does not disclose ‘using recorded vehicle system states’ to determine a real condition as claimed.” (Remarks 5). The examiner disagrees.
It is the examiner’s duty to give claims “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP § 2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, if the specification is silent to the meaning of claim terminology, “words of the claim must be given their plain meaning.” See MPEP § 2111.01.
The examiner is unable to locate any special definition of the term “state” in the present specification. As a result, the plain and ordinary meaning must be used. Philion
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date understood a “state” to be “a condition or way of being that exists at a particular time.” (“state,” Cambridge Dictionary Online, November 12, 2020, Page 1).
Philion discloses that the system uses a an image from the vehicle. (Philion ¶ 49). An image from the vehicle is a representation of the way of being that exists at the moment the image was generated, making it a “state” within the plane and ordinary meaning of the term.
Moreover, because the camera is “in the car,” it is a vehicle system. Thus, the images from the camera represent a vehicle system state.
Because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
Finally, even if the claim required a narrower interpretation, Philion discloses that other sensor states may also be used such as GPS data, LiDAR, and IMUs. (Philion ¶¶ 90, 112-114, 119).
If Applicant intends for a particular system state to be represented, the examiner recommends amending the claim to recite that specific detail.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues “Philion does not disclose creating a road condition model using recorded vehicle system states and a further road model using satellite images as claimed” because “[t]he images used by Philion are captured using an ‘image recording device…located on a vehicle or…ariel.’” (Remarks 5-6). The examiner disagrees.
Philion discloses several instances of using satellite images. For instance, Philion explicitly states that “some embodiments [are] used with satellite imagery.” (Philion ¶ 53, see also ¶¶ 10, 63, 114, and 119 and Claim 16). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejections of claims 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, respectively, Applicant argues that these claims are allowable for depending on claim 11. (Remarks 6). Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
