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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Independent claim 1 is directed to a product for controlling an engineering machine. Therefore, the independent claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An intelligent control system for an engineering machine, the intelligent control system comprising a server and an on-board terminal disposed on the engineering machine, wherein the on-board terminal comprises an image collection module, an internal data obtaining module, a satellite positioning module, a main control module, a communication module, and a display module, wherein:
the satellite positioning module is configured to obtain current position data of the engineering machine;
the communication module is configured to transmit the position data to the server in real time;
the server is configured to generate a movement trajectory of each engineering machine based on the position data uploaded by each engineering machine, the movement trajectory comprising a movement route of each engineering machine and a movement speed of each engineering machine at each position on the movement route;
the image collection module is configured to collect image data outside the engineering machine;
the internal data obtaining module is configured to obtain state data of the engineering machine;
the main control module is configured to analyze the image data to determine whether clarity of the image data meets a predetermined requirement, when the predetermined requirement is not met, determine whether the engineering machine is currently in a moving state based on the state data, and when the engineering machine is currently in the moving state, transmit an auxiliary request to the server through the communication module;
the server is further configured to, subsequent to receiving the auxiliary request, estimate a future movement route of the engineering machine based on a current movement route of the engineering machine and an existing movement route of another engineering machine, match road sections of the estimated movement route of the engineering machine with corresponding road sections of the existing movement route of the other engineering machine based on the estimated movement route, and calculate an average movement speed of the engineering machine at each position on a successfully matched road section as an average movement speed of the engineering machine at each position on the estimated movement route; and transmit the estimated movement route of the engineering machine and the average movement speed of the engineering machine at each position on the estimated movement route to the main control module through the communication module;
the main control module is further configured to determine whether a current position of the engineering machine is on the estimated movement route, when the current position of the engineering machine is on the estimated movement route, calculate a difference value between a current movement speed of the engineering machine and an average movement speed of the engineering machine at a corresponding position on the estimated movement route, determine whether the difference value is greater than a first threshold value, and generate alarm information when the difference value is greater than the first threshold value; and
the display module is configured to display the image data and the alarm information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the steps of generating, analyzing, determining, estimating, matching, and calculating all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. 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).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An intelligent control system for an engineering machine, the intelligent control system comprising a server and an on-board terminal disposed on the engineering machine, wherein the on-board terminal comprises an image collection module, an internal data obtaining module, a satellite positioning module, a main control module, a communication module, and a display module, wherein:
the satellite positioning module is configured to obtain current position data of the engineering machine;
the communication module is configured to transmit the position data to the server in real time;
the server is configured to generate a movement trajectory of each engineering machine based on the position data uploaded by each engineering machine, the movement trajectory comprising a movement route of each engineering machine and a movement speed of each engineering machine at each position on the movement route;
the image collection module is configured to collect image data outside the engineering machine;
the internal data obtaining module is configured to obtain state data of the engineering machine;
the main control module is configured to analyze the image data to determine whether clarity of the image data meets a predetermined requirement, when the predetermined requirement is not met, determine whether the engineering machine is currently in a moving state based on the state data, and when the engineering machine is currently in the moving state, transmit an auxiliary request to the server through the communication module;
the server is further configured to, subsequent to receiving the auxiliary request, estimate a future movement route of the engineering machine based on a current movement route of the engineering machine and an existing movement route of another engineering machine, match road sections of the estimated movement route of the engineering machine with corresponding road sections of the existing movement route of the other engineering machine based on the estimated movement route, and calculate an average movement speed of the engineering machine at each position on a successfully matched road section as an average movement speed of the engineering machine at each position on the estimated movement route; and transmit the estimated movement route of the engineering machine and the average movement speed of the engineering machine at each position on the estimated movement route to the main control module through the communication module;
the main control module is further configured to determine whether a current position of the engineering machine is on the estimated movement route, when the current position of the engineering machine is on the estimated movement route, calculate a difference value between a current movement speed of the engineering machine and an average movement speed of the engineering machine at a corresponding position on the estimated movement route, determine whether the difference value is greater than a first threshold value, and generate alarm information when the difference value is greater than the first threshold value; and
the display module is configured to display the image data and the alarm information.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the steps of obtaining position data, transmitting position data, collecting image data, obtaining state data, transmitting a request, and transmitting the route are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to no more than mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The step of displaying image data and alarm information is also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Lastly, claim 1 further recites a server, an on-board terminal, an image collection module, an internal data obtaining module, a satellite positioning model, a main control module, a communication module, and a display module. These limitations merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a server and on-board terminal with modules to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of collecting and obtaining information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the terminal is anything other than a conventional computer, nor that the modules are anything other than conventional vehicle control modules. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “generate a deceleration control instruction” in claim 3 is not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “wherein the movement engineering machine is controlled based on the generated control instruction” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Therefore, claims 1-8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200236501 A1, with an earliest priority date of January 22nd, 2019, hereinafter “Suzuki”, in view of US 20140244125 A1, filed June 3rd, 2013, hereinafter “Dorum”, and in view of US 20190094039 A1, with an earliest priority date of September 26th, 2017, hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches An intelligent control system, the intelligent control system comprising a server and an on-board terminal disposed on the engineering machine. See at least [0035] and figure 1, guidance device 100 on board host vehicle M and server device 200.
wherein the on-board terminal comprises an internal data obtaining module, a satellite positioning module, a main control module, a communication module, and a display module. See at least [0040]-[0044] and figure 2, wherein guidance device 100 includes vehicle sensor 102, GNSS receiver 104, controller 130, communicator 108, and interface 106.
wherein: the satellite positioning module is configured to obtain current position data of the engineering machine. See at least [0042], wherein GNSS receiver 104 uses satellite signals to obtain a position of the host vehicle.
the communication module is configured to transmit the position data to the server in real time. See at least [0044], wherein communicator 108 communicates with server device 200. Additionally, see at least [0055] and [0058], wherein acquirer 136 of the guidance device 100 transmits information on the current position of the host vehicle to server device 200 using communicator 108 and communication controller 142.
the server is configured to generate a movement trajectory of each engineering machine based on the position data uploaded by each engineering machine; the movement trajectory comprising a movement route of each engineering machine. See at least [0039], wherein the server device transmits guidance information to the guidance device based on received signals from the guidance device. See at least [0056], wherein a route of the host vehicle is acquired based on the current position of the host vehicle. See at least [0102]-[0104], wherein the functions of the guidance device 100 may be performed by the server device 200, in particular the steps S102-S106 of figure 8.
the internal data obtaining module is configured to obtain state data of the engineering machine. See at least [0041], wherein vehicle sensor 102 detects vehicle state information, such as speed information or acceleration information.
when the predetermined requirement is not met, determine whether the engineering machine is currently in a moving state based on the state data, and when the engineering machine is currently in the moving state, transmit an auxiliary request to the server through the communication module. See at least [0039] and [0055]-[0056], wherein the guidance device 100 transmits a request to server device 200 for information in order to predict a route of the host vehicle. See at least [0085] and figure 8, step S100, wherein movement information of the host vehicle is acquired in order to begin the process flow. Additionally, see at least [0093], wherein, in an embodiment, the step of predicting a route of the host vehicle using an existing route of another vehicle is performed when a predetermined condition regarding the quality of the data is not satisfied.
the server is further configured to, subsequent to receiving the auxiliary request, estimate a future movement route of the engineering machine based on a current movement route of the engineering machine and an existing movement route of another engineering machine. See at least [0085] and figure 8, step S106, wherein a route for the host vehicle is predicted based on the current movement information of the host vehicle and existing movement information of another vehicle by route predictor 138. See at least [0102]-[0104], wherein the functions of the guidance device 100 may be performed by the server device 200, in particular the steps S102-S106 of figure 8.
match road sections of the estimated movement route of the engineering machine with corresponding road sections of the existing movement route of the other engineering machine based on the estimated movement route. See at least [0071] and figure 6, wherein the route predictor 138 predicts the route by matching road links of the movement trajectory of the host vehicle (R1 and R2 in fig. 6) with corresponding road links of the movement information of the other vehicle (R1, R2, R3, and R4 in fig. 6).
and transmit the estimated movement route of the engineering machine to the main control module through the communication module. See at least [0086], wherein guidance information based on the predicted route is acquired by the guidance device. See at least [0104], wherein the guidance information is acquired from the server device 200.
and the display module is configured to display the image data and the alarm information. See at least [0082]-[0083] and figure 7, wherein image IM1 is displayed on HMI 106, along with guidance information.
Suzuki remains silent on an engineering machine, an image collection module, the movement trajectory comprising a movement speed of each engineering machine at each position on the movement route, the image collection module is configured to collect image data outside the engineering machine; the main control module is configured to analyze the image data to determine whether clarity of the image data meets a predetermined requirement, and calculate an average movement speed of the engineering machine at each position on a successfully matched road section as an average movement speed of the engineering machine at each position on the estimated movement route; transmitting the average movement speed of the engineering machine at each position on the estimated movement route; the main control module is further configured to determine whether a current position of the engineering machine is on the estimated movement route, when the current position of the engineering machine is on the estimated movement route, calculate a difference value between a current movement speed of the engineering machine and an average movement speed of the engineering machine at a corresponding position on the estimated movement route, determine whether the difference value is greater than a first threshold value, and generate alarm information when the difference value is greater than the first threshold value.
Dorum teaches an engineering machine. See at least [0058], wherein the vehicle type includes large trucks.
the movement trajectory comprising a movement speed of each engineering machine at each position on the movement route. See at least [0062]-[0064] and figure 7, wherein a trajectory curve of the vehicle includes a speed threshold for each vehicle at each position on the curve.
and calculate an average movement speed of the engineering machine at each position on a successfully matched road section as an average movement speed of the engineering machine at each position on the estimated movement route. See at least [0061]-[0064], [0069]-[0070], figure 7, and figure 9, wherein the speed threshold at a position of the movement curve is calculated as the average speed obtained from probe data of other vehicles, and compared against the vehicle’s average speed at the position.
transmitting the average movement speed of the engineering machine at each position on the estimated movement route. See at least [0063], wherein the movement information including the average speed information is transmitted to mobile device 122.
the main control module is further configured to determine whether a current position of the engineering machine is on the estimated movement route. See at least [0069]-[0070] and figure 9, wherein a current position of the vehicle is obtained and compared against the estimated curve.
when the current position of the engineering machine is on the estimated movement route, calculate a difference value between a current movement speed of the engineering machine and an average movement speed of the engineering machine at a corresponding position on the estimated movement route, determine whether the difference value is greater than a first threshold value, and generate alarm information when the difference value is greater than the first threshold value. See at least [0064]-[0065] and [0070]-[0071], wherein the current speed of the vehicle is compared against the corresponding average movement speed at the position, and the difference in speed (measured in standard deviations) is calculated, if the difference is greater than a first (comfort) threshold value, an alarm is generated.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Suzuki with Dorum’s technique of determining a movement speed of a vehicle at each position on a route from average speed information of other vehicles on the route, determining whether a vehicle is on the route, calculating a difference between the vehicle speed and average speed, and generating an alarm when the difference exceeds a first threshold. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables drivers to use enhanced models for driver assistance, allowing drivers to cover various environmental conditions, as recognized by Dorum (see at least [0003]-[0018]).
Lee teaches an image collection module, the image collection module is configured to collect image data outside the engineering machine. See at least [0124]-[0134] and figure 2, object detection device 300 including cameras 310 which capture information on the exterior of the vehicle.
the main control module is configured to analyze the image data to determine whether clarity of the image data meets a predetermined requirement. See at least [0392]-[0393] and figure 10, wherein sensor information is analyzed to determine whether the information satisfies an image clarity criterion. See at least [0402]-[0404].
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Suzuki with Lee’s image collection module, and step of analyzing image data to determine whether an image clarity criterion is satisfied. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to generate driving routes while actively considering sensor information without delays, as recognized by Lee (see at least [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki, Dorum, and Lee in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Suzuki remains silent on wherein the main control module is further configured to determine whether the difference value is greater than a second threshold value, and generate a deceleration control instruction when the difference value is greater than the second threshold value.
Lee teaches wherein the main control module is further configured to determine whether the difference value is greater than a second threshold value, and generate a deceleration control instruction when the difference value is greater than the second threshold value. See at least [0034] and [0065], wherein the difference between the vehicle’s speed and the average speed is compared against a second (safety) threshold. Additionally, see at least [0035], [0066], and [0071], wherein the thresholds are determined based on where the other vehicles begin to brake, and the generated warning includes a command to automatically slow or brake the vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Suzuki with Dorum’s technique of comparing the vehicle speed to a second threshold value, and generating a command to brake the vehicle based on the speed exceeding the determined thresholds. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables drivers to use enhanced models for driver assistance, allowing drivers to cover various environmental conditions, as recognized by Dorum (see at least [0003]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki, Dorum, and Lee in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Suzuki additionally teaches wherein the communication module is further configured to transmit type information of the engineering machine to the server. See at least [0075], wherein vehicle type information of the vehicle is obtained by route predictor 138.
and the server is further configured to determine a starting point based on the current movement route of the engineering machine. See at least [0076], wherein a starting point SP of the host vehicle is determined by route predictor 138.
and estimate the future movement route of the engineering machine based on the current movement route of the engineering machine and an existing movement route of another engineering machine of a same type and a same starting point. See at least [0074]-[0076], wherein the route for the host vehicle is predicted based on the route of the host vehicle from starting point SP to current point CP, and by selecting a route of another vehicle within a predetermined distance of starting point SP and of the same vehicle type information of the host vehicle.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Dorum, and Lee in combination as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20210372796 A1, wilted June 26th, 2019, hereinafter “Lin”.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki, Dorum, and Lee in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Suzuki remains silent on wherein at least four image collection modules are provided and distributed on four sides of the engineering machine; the main control module is further configured to analyze the image data, identify an obstacle area in the image data, mark the obstacle area in the image data, and synthesize a panoramic image; and the display module is further configured to display the panoramic image.
Lee teaches wherein at least four image collection modules are provided and distributed on four sides of the engineering machine. See at least [0126] and figure 2, wherein the cameras include Around View Monitoring cameras 310b, disposed on each of the four sides of the vehicle.
the main control module is further configured to analyze the image data, identify an obstacle area in the image data. See at least [0225], [0342]-[0344], [0498], and figures 12 and 15A, wherein the sensor data from the cameras is analyzed to identify areas with fixed objects (obstacles) near the vehicle.
mark the obstacle area in the image data, and synthesize an image; and the display module is further configured to display the image. See at least [0550]-[0571] and figure 15, wherein the display unit 251 is controlled to display a generated image representing the detected object information. See at least [0569], wherein the displayed image is generated by overlapping an image for the detected object on the image sensed by the sensor.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Suzuki with Lee’s step of analyzing image data, identifying obstacle areas, and synthesizing images for display with marked object information. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to generate driving routes while actively considering sensor information without delays, as recognized by Lee (see at least [0038]-[0039]).
Lin teaches a panoramic image. See at least [0113], wherein a model is synthesized based on the image data, representing a 360-degree view of the current surroundings of the vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Suzuki with Lin’s panoramic image. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to incorporate visual place recognition in the mapping and localization process, allowing vehicles to counter situations such as weather or construction, as recognized by Lin (see at least [0019]).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki, Dorum, and Lee in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Suzuki remains silent on wherein the communication module uses a 5G communication module.
Lin teaches wherein the communication module uses a 5G communication module. See at least [0083], wherein the communication module comprises one of more 5G antennas.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Suzuki with Lin’s 5G communication module. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to incorporate visual place recognition in the mapping and localization process, allowing vehicles to counter situations such as weather or construction, as recognized by Lin (see at least [0019]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Dorum, and Lee as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20180075666 A1, with an earliest priority date of September 14th, 2016, hereinafter “Feng”.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki, Dorum, and Lee in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above, and Suzuki additionally teaches the server is further configured to determine whether an engineering machine is within a predetermined range of a labeling position based on the received position data, and transmit the manual labeling information to a communication module of the engineering machine when the engineering machine is within the predetermined range of the labeling position. See at least [0038], wherein guidance information including point of interest information is transmitted from the server device 200, based on the points of interest being within a predetermined distance of the vehicle’s travel route.
and the display module is further configured to obtain the manual labeling information from the communication module and display the manual labeling information. See at least [0081] and figure 7, wherein guidance information regarding the points of interest is obtained and displayed.
Suzuki remains silent on wherein the display module is further configured to receive manual labeling information, the manual labeling information comprising a labeling position and a labeling category; the main control module is further configured to transmit the manual labeling information to the server.
Feng teaches wherein the display module is further configured to receive manual labeling information, the manual labeling information comprising a labeling position and a labeling category; the main control module is further configured to transmit the manual labeling information to the server. See at least [0030], [0033]-[0042], and figure 3, wherein a user manually updates labeling results, including errors in object position and object type information, using a visual tool (display) of a terminal device. See at least [0030]-[0033], wherein the terminal device transmits information to server 103.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Suzuki with Feng’s manual labeling tool. It would have been obvious because doing so enables increased labeling efficiency, allowing systems to process large amounts of training samples, as recognized by Feng (see at least [0003]-[0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Selena M. Jin whose telephone number is (408)918-7588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/S.M.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
