DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits and is directed towards claims 1-17 as originally presented and filed on 06/05/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Priority is claimed as set forth below, accordingly the earliest effective filing date is December 16, 2024 (20241216).
The present application, effectively filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
This application claims priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2024-0186672, filed on December 16, 2024 (20241216).
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609 [R-07.2022], Applicant's 06/05/2025 submission(s) of Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)(s) is/are acknowledged by the Examiner and the reference(s) cited therein has/have been considered in the examination of the claim(s) now pending. A copy of the submitted IDS(s) initialed and dated by the Examiner is/are attached to the instant Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 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 1-3, 8, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210078689 A1 to Zhou; Wesley in view of US 10410532 B1 to Myr; David.
Regarding claim 1 Zhou teaches in for example the Figure(s) reproduced immediately below:
PNG
media_image1.png
655
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
483
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
474
491
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
469
552
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
448
690
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
715
524
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and associated descriptive texts an apparatus for server-based intelligent driving control of a vehicle (as shown in for example only Fig. 1 above, given the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA) would see with the art in front of them an apparatus such as control unit 23 that appears capable of performing the intended use of controlling a vehicle such as a “watercraft 45” as shown in for example Fig. 3 as explained in for example paras:
“[0011] FIG. 1 illustrates apparatus for, among other things, implementing driving zone or boundary establishment and control for a personal watercraft, for example, such as a jet ski.
[0012] The apparatus of FIG. 1 includes an alert unit 13, throttle override apparatus 15, a GPS receiver 17, a time/location card reader 19, power connectors 21 and a controller unit 23. In one embodiment, the alert unit 13 may produce an audible alarm, which may be, for example, a buzzing noise.
[0013] Respective electrical cables interconnect each of the components 15, 17, 19, 21 to the control unit 23. The apparatus further includes one or more set zone cards 26 and one or more timer cards 28. In one embodiment, set zone cards 26 and timer cards 28 include RFID chips and the time/location reader 19 may comprise an RFID scanner configured to read data off the RFID chips and supply it to the controller unit 23. In one illustrative embodiment, the card reader 19 may further include LEDs or other lighting devices 49, 51, 53, 55.
[0018] In an illustrative embodiment, a boundary 35 for limiting travel of a personal watercraft 45 is established by scanning a set zone card 26 and riding the watercraft 45 around an area to establish a perimeter, such as perimeter 35 shown in FIG. 3. The perimeter 35 may be of any arbitrary shape, depending upon where the watercraft 45 is driven. In an illustrative embodiment, as the watercraft 45 traverses the path of perimeter 35, the GPS location data from the GPS receiver 17 is sampled by the processor 29 and stored in the memory 31, such that a representation of the perimeter 35 or “set zone area” is stored in memory. In an alternate embodiment, a boundary perimeter may be pre-programmed into the memory 31, for example by an owner of the PWC 45 who is renting it out to a series of users.”),
the apparatus (i.e. controller 23) comprising:
a position information generation unit configured to:
receive a satellite navigation signal transmitted from a satellite navigation system;
and generate position information of the vehicle (is known to a POSITA and shown in for example Fig. 2 above as “GPS receiver 17” as explained in for example para [0018] above);
a transmission unit configured to transmit position information of the vehicle to OTHER VEHICLES t
“[0024] In an illustrative embodiment, the RF signal from Transceivers 30 only has a limited range, which is such that the Process assumes that PWCs outside of RF range are not going to be a collision danger. What is broadcast by RF continuously is the current location of each PWC, which, in one embodiment may be updated in 200 ms intervals. Thus, as soon as a Transceiver 30 receives an RF signal, the controller 23 will wait for a few location updates and then will determine whether the distance to this other or “second” PWC is increasing or decreasing. In one embodiment, for the unit to set speed to “restricted” in order to avoid collision threats, three requirements must be met:”);
a reception unit configured to receive, a speed limit based on the position information of the vehicle (given the BRI connotes the Throttle Override unit 15 as explained in for example para:
“[0014] In one embodiment, the throttle override apparatus 15 comprises male and female and electrical connectors 25, 27, which are respectively configured to plug into and electrically connect with respective existing female and male throttle control connectors of a personal watercraft to thereby interpose a control function on the speed of the watercraft implemented by the controller unit 23. The GPS receiver 17 may be a conventional commercially available unit configured to receive GPS positional coordinate information from satellites via a self-contained antenna. The time/location key reader 19 may also be a conventional commercially available component. The power connectors 21 may also be commercially available electrical connectors selected to connect with power connectors already in place in the personal watercraft to supply, for example, 12 volts D.C. to the controller unit 23.”);
and a control unit configured to:
control the vehicle to drive at or below a maximum speed of the vehicle;
and limit the maximum speed of the vehicle to the received speed limit (given the BRI the limitation “ a control unit” connotes inter alia Processor 29 inside of controller unit 23 as explained in for example paras:
“[0019] During a subsequent operation of the watercraft, the processor 29 compares the position of the watercraft established by the GPS data to detect whether the position of the watercraft 45 has moved to a point outside of the established boundary perimeter or set zone area 35. If so, the processor 29 provides a throttle control signal via the throttle control override connectors 25, 27 which reduces and limits the watercraft speed to a selected slow level, such as, for example, 5 mile per hour, thereby signaling to the watercraft operator that the watercraft 45 is beyond the permitted area of operation and effectively rendering the watercraft 45 unsuitable for normal operation. Once the watercraft returns to a position within the perimeter 35, the GPS data provided to the processor 29 causes the processor 29 to detect that position and withdraw the restriction on the speed of the watercraft 45.”).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are NOT imported into the claims. The Examiner must give the claim language the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) the claims allow.
See MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-10.2024], which states
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Inter US-20100280751-A1 1pretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV., below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
In Zletz, supra, the examiner and the Board had interpreted claims reading "normally solid polypropylene" and "normally solid polypropylene having a crystalline polypropylene content" as being limited to "normally solid linear high homopolymers of propylene which have a crystalline polypropylene content." The court ruled that limitations, not present in the claims, were improperly imported from the specification. See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'" (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)). The court looked to the specification to construe "essentially free of alkali metal" as including unavoidable levels of impurities but no more.).”
MPEP 2141.03 Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art [R-01.2024]
The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (A) "type of problems encountered in the art;" (B) "prior art solutions to those problems;" (C) "rapidity with which innovations are made;" (D) "sophistication of the technology; and" (E) "educational level of active workers in the field. In a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or more factors may predominate." In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962, 1 USPQ2d 1196, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Environmental Designs, Ltd. V. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696, 218 USPQ 865, 868 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
The level of disclosure in the specification of the application under examination or in relevant references may also be informative of the knowledge and skills of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, if the specification is entirely silent on how a certain step or function is achieved, that silence may suggest that figuring out how to achieve that step or function is within the ordinary skill in the art, provided that the specification complies with 35 U.S.C. 112. Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1339, 2020 USPQ2d 10476 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("The specification of the '593 patent is entirely silent on how to transmit user locations and maps from a server to a user's mobile device, suggesting that a person of ordinary skill in the art was more than capable of selecting between the known methods of accomplishing this. The '593 patent confirms that its invention, including any necessary plotting, ‘utilizes existing platforms and infrastructure’ and does not ‘require development of new cell phone or PDA technology, nor do[es it] require development of new cellular communication infrastructure.’")
The "hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988) (The Board disagreed with the examiner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art (a doctorate level engineer or scientist working at least 40 hours per week in semiconductor research or development), finding that the hypothetical person is not definable by way of credentials, and that the evidence in the application did not support the conclusion that such a person would require a doctorate or equivalent knowledge in science or engineering.).
References which are not prior art may be relied upon to demonstrate the level of ordinary skill in the art at or around the relevant time. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1098, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Evidence of contemporaneous invention is probative of ‘the level of knowledge in the art at the time the invention was made.’" (citing In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 720, 219 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983))); Ecolochem, Inc. v. S. California Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361, 1379, 56 USPQ2d 1065, 1079 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("The fact of near-simultaneous invention, though not determinative of statutory obviousness, is strong evidence of what constitutes the level of ordinary skill in the art." (quoting The Int’l Glass Co. v. United States, 408 F.2d 395, 405, 159 USPQ 434, 442 (Ct. Cl. 1969))). See also Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Litton Sys., Inc., 720 F.2d 1572, 1580-81, 220 USPQ 1, 7 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("Thus, the [unpublished internal materials], though not technically prior art, were, in effect, properly used as indicators of the level of ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertained.").
Moreover, references not available as prior art may be relevant to establishing "a motivation to combine which is implicit in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art." Nat'l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Can. Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1337-38, 69 USPQ2d 1641, 1656 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that a drawing made by an engineer that was not prior art can, nonetheless, "... be used to demonstrate a motivation to combine implicit in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.").
While Zhou clearly shows a transmission unit and limiting the speed of the vehicle based on the position of the vehicle, Zhou does not appear to expressly disclose a transmission unit configured to transmit the position information of the vehicle to a server through a communication network;
a reception unit configured to receive, from the server, a speed limit based on the position information of the vehicle (emphasis added).
As a matter of course a POSITA would look towards and be guided by MPEP 2144.04 to determine whether the claimed limitations would create any new or unexpected result.
In analogous art Myr teaches in for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image7.png
667
532
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
271
490
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
346
498
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
389
496
media_image10.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts a transmission unit configured to transmit the position information of the vehicle to a server through a communication network (as shown in for example Fig. 1, :
“(36) The communication between the aerial vehicles 102 and the central processing server unit 101 can be performed using an existing cellular phone network, using point-to-point communications that involve the radio relay or using other communication means. Aerial vehicle’s location data will be received by GPS/ADS-b means, when every aerial vehicle enrolled into the system must be equipped with GPS and/or ADS-b. In such a communication, each aerial vehicle will have a unique identifier (e.g., a cell phone number) that may be used for communication.”);
a reception unit configured to receive, from the server, a speed limit based on the position information of the vehicle (as shown in for example Fig. 1, “speed limits 106” as explained in for example paras:
“(39) Also, to implement the system, a special map for aerial movement within the urban area air traffic control zone boundaries will be prepared 104. Such a map will include a variety of data necessary to implement correct movement of aerial vehicles within safety rules and other relevant regulations. Such data will include determination of vertical flight levels, direction of movement above each road, entry/exit points, landing/takeoff slots, and available parking zones.
(40) Safety/regulatory requirements will be embedded 105 in the abovementioned map 104 to ensure safe passage within the urban boundaries area. The system is designed in such a way that it can work, under safety standards and regulations (current or as will be determined in the future by FAA or other relevant authority), for a centralized air traffic control system where a number of independent aerial vehicles companies can co-exist in a common urban area traffic control zone airspace.
(41) Speed limits inside such boundaries will be further determined 106. Such speed limits will be defined by V.sup.Max,V.sup.Min.
(42) For each aerial vehicle ride ordered by the user, the output of the system will include safe path from landing to takeoff above existing roads, with minimal total number of changes in speed and/or altitude level for all aerial vehicles currently using the centralized urban area traffic control zone aerospace 107.“).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ability of the vehicles to communicate with a server as disclosed in Myr with the vehicle controls taught in Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success because some vehicles “MUST BE CENTRALLT CONTROLLED” and it would have “allowed real time” control of the vehicle as taught by Myr Para(s):
“(9) Modern aerial vehicles have on-board GPS/ADS-b equipment, sensors collision avoidance systems, but the ever growing number of these vehicles must be centrally controlled in congested urban airspace.
(43) The system preferred embodiment is to implement centralized aerial vehicles traffic control, but it can be implemented for other uses, such as providing shipments, deliveries, etc. System working parameters can be modified in a real-time mode.”.
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Zhou teaches the limitation the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to:
monitor a speed of the vehicle (expressly in Zhou para:
“[0025] According to the flow diagram of FIG. 6, in step 108 of Process 2, the RF signal from Transceiver 30 is checked to locate other PWC's in the vicinity, and the location of each such PWC is stored in a memory register. If, in step 109, another PWC is determined to be getting closer to the current location, the flow proceeds to a series of tests 111, 113, 130, 133 where the current speed of the PWC 45 is checked. Based upon the current speed, one of a series of second tests 112, 124, 131, 134 is applied where the controller 23 causes the speed of the PWC 45 to be set to “restricted,” and the red “keep distance” LED is turned on if the closest other approaching PWC is within a selected distance of the PWC 45. The rider/driver of the PWC 45 can then take action to avoid danger, for example, by proceeding back to a safe distance from adjacent PWCs.”);
and when the speed of the vehicle exceeds the speed limit, control at least one of motor output (given the BRI see Zhou para [0019] wherein it is understood that throttle control limits the speed of the motor which limits the output of the motor),
fuel injection amount (given the BRI see Zhou para [0019] wherein it is understood that limiting the throttle is known to a POSITA to limit the amount of fuel being used by the engine of the jet ski to reduce/restrict speed),
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Zhou teaches in see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference the limitation A server for intelligent driving control of a vehicle (see, Myr fig. 1 Central Processing Server Unit 101),
the server comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive position information of the vehicle from a vehicle driving control apparatus (as shown in Myr fig. 1, a POSITA would see and understand that the lines going back and forth between item 101 and 102 connotes the claimed limitations);
a matching unit configured to match the position information of the vehicle to a road map comprising road nodes and road links based on a database within the server (as shown in Myr fig. 1, a POSITA would see and understand that the lines going back and forth between items 101 and 103-106 connotes the claimed limitations);
an identifier extraction unit configured to extract an identifier of a road link corresponding to the matched position information from the database within the server (as shown in Myr fig. 1, a POSITA would see and understand that the lines going back and forth between item 101 and 104 connotes the claimed limitations, see paras:
“(39) Also, to implement the system, a special map for aerial movement within the urban area air traffic control zone boundaries will be prepared 104. Such a map will include a variety of data necessary to implement correct movement of aerial vehicles within safety rules and other relevant regulations. Such data will include determination of vertical flight levels, direction of movement above each road, entry/exit points, landing/takeoff slots, and available parking zones.
(40) Safety/regulatory requirements will be embedded 105 in the abovementioned map 104 to ensure safe passage within the urban boundaries area. The system is designed in such a way that it can work, under safety standards and regulations (current or as will be determined in the future by FAA or other relevant authority), for a centralized air traffic control system where a number of independent aerial vehicles companies can co-exist in a common urban area traffic control zone airspace.“));
a speed limit detection unit configured to detect, from the database within the server, a speed limit corresponding to the identifier of the road link (as shown in Myr fig. 1, a POSITA would see and understand that given the BRI the lines going back and forth between item 101 and 103-106 connotes the claimed limitations);
and a transmission unit configured to transmit the detected speed limit to the vehicle driving control apparatus, wherein the database is configured to store and update real-time speed limits for the road links (as shown in Myr fig. 1, a POSITA would see and understand that given the BRI the lines going back and forth between item 101 and 103-106 connotes the claimed limitations).
A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Myr with Zhou for the express benefit of allowing real time control of all the jet skis such as when an unexpected storm approaches the operating area of the jet skis .
Regarding claim 8 and the limitation A method for server-based intelligent driving control of a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving, by a vehicle driving control apparatus, a satellite navigation signal transmitted from a satellite navigation system to generate position information of the vehicle;
transmitting, by the vehicle driving control apparatus, the position information of the vehicle to a server through a communication network;
matching, by the server, the position information of the vehicle to a road map comprising road nodes and road links;
detecting, by the server, a speed limit corresponding to the matched position information;
transmitting, by the server, the speed limit to the vehicle driving control apparatus through the communication network;
controlling, by the vehicle driving control apparatus, the vehicle to drive at or below a maximum speed of the vehicle;
and controlling, by the vehicle driving control apparatus, the maximum speed of the vehicle to the received speed limit (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 14 and the limitation the method according to claim 8, further comprising:
monitoring, by the vehicle driving control apparatus,
a speed of the vehicle;
and when the speed of the vehicle exceeds the speed limit,
controlling, by the vehicle driving control apparatus,
at least one of motor output,
fuel injection amount,
of the vehicle to reduce the speed of the vehicle to or below the speed limit (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 8 and 2 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 15 and the limitation the method according to claim 8, further comprising:
generating a vehicle trajectory based on at least one of a distance between a road link and a trajectory candidate
or an angle between the road link and the trajectory candidate (it is considered that given the BRI a POSITA would understand the claim limitations connotes the flight path of the vehicles necessary to take off and land on the “existing roads” to see the teachings of Myr fig. 4b below).
PNG
media_image11.png
540
712
media_image11.png
Greyscale
“(45) As mentioned above, the centralized urban air traffic control in our invention is based on flying above the existing paved roads. The database of existing roads 202 in a city urban area traffic control zone will be established on a central processing server unit 201. Regarding each road (street), it will be initially determined if the street is available for aerial vehicles' flying, and the aerial movement direction above the street, as all roads will be set as one-way roads. For streets available for flying, levels open for flying will be further determined.
(46) Each road available for flying will be set as a one-way road for the purpose of flying.“.
Claims 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210078689 A1 to Zhou; Wesley in view of US 10410532 B1 to Myr; David as applied to the claims above in view of US 20220406040 A1 to GANILLE; Thierry et al. (Ganille).
Regarding claims 4 and 9 the combination of Zhou does not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Ganille given the BRI teaches to a POSITA the limitations wherein the matching unit is configured to:
determine a speed of the vehicle based on the position information of the vehicle and a time point at which the position information is received;
determine whether the position information of the vehicle is erroneous based on the determined speed of the vehicle;
and delete the position information determined to be erroneous (in for example para:
“[0110] Thus, in one embodiment, data from real sensors during real flights are stored with aircraft parameters (at least those of position and attitude), and information regarding the synchronization of the sensor data is stored with the parameters of the aircraft. The difficulty in implementing the method of the invention on this type of data is in the first-level ground truth generation step (step 302), since the real parameters of the aircraft are generally slightly erroneous. Thus, a GPS position is precise to within a few meters with a maximum of the order of 30 meters, a GPS altitude is slightly less precise again, and a heading of the aircraft is known with a precision of a few tenths of a degree to 2 or 3 degrees, depending on the type of instrument providing the parameter. If these parameters were to be used directly in the method of the invention to position the runway and the approach lighting strip, it would not be possible to obtain superimposition of the ground truth on the corresponding data in the real sensor data. Therefore, the ground truth is created manually. However, since such an operation is tedious on a large volume of data, advantageously in one embodiment, an analysis of the parameters of the aircraft is performed at the time of touchdown on the runway and during the deceleration phase on the runway. Specifically, since the position and the altitude of the two runway thresholds are known precisely, it is possible to easily compute the runway heading, and since the aircraft is taxiing fairly precisely on the central axis of the runway during deceleration, it is easy to compute the heading error provided by the parameters of the aircraft and the GPS altitude error by comparing the altitude of the aircraft at touchdown with the altitude of the runway threshold by taking into account the height of the GPS antenna with respect to the ground and by taking multiple points during taxiing, and find an approximation of the latitude and longitude errors that makes it possible to correct the lateral deviation from the runway. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the longitudinal deviation from the runway, since it is never precisely known where the aircraft is located longitudinally on the runway, but this error has the least impact for the position of the runway in the ground truth. Once these errors have been identified, they are considered to be constant over the few seconds before landing, and they are backpropagated to the parameters of the aircraft during the final phase of the approach to generate the first-level ground truth (step 302). The following steps (304, 306) are identical to those described with reference to FIG. 3 for the simulated data, the parts without visibility are masked using a visibility limit detection algorithm, and control data may be generated. Data that are too erroneous may be deleted. This embodiment makes it possible to obtain complementary data for the simulated data training base, thus making it possible to improve the training phase of an AI algorithm.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the erroneous data deletion disclosed in Ganille with the system taught in the combination of Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “improved the training phase of an AI algorithm” as taught by Ganille:
“This embodiment makes it possible to obtain complementary data for the simulated data training base, thus making it possible to improve the training phase of an AI algorithm.”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 10-13 and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding the claimed terms, the Examiner notes that a “general term must be understood in the context in which the inventor presents it.” In re Glaug 283 F.3d 1335, 1340, 62 USPQ2d 1151, 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Therefore the Examiner must interpret the claimed terms as found within the Original Specification. Clearly almost all the general terms in the claims may have multiple meanings. So where a claim term “is susceptible to various meanings, ... the inventor’s lexicography must prevail ....” Id. Using these definitions for the claims, the claimed invention was not reasonably found in the prior art.
Regarding the independent claim(s), the prior art taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to disclose, suggest, teach, or render obvious the invention as a whole. The closest prior art fails to teach or render obvious claim 5 and the limitation the server according to claim 4, wherein the matching unit is configured to: extract road links existing within a predetermined radius based on the position information; determine an initial probability of the extracted road links; update the initial probability for each road link in chronological order of receiving the position information by determining probabilities of the vehicle moving from the road links extracted based on received position information to road links extracted based on subsequently received position information; when updating is completed by determining a probability of the vehicle moving to road links extracted based on final position information, generate a vehicle trajectory by selecting the road link with a highest probability for each piece of position information, in reverse chronological order starting from the road link with the highest probability among the road links extracted based on the final position information; detect overlapping paths in the vehicle trajectory; and correct the vehicle trajectory by removing the overlapping paths or Regarding claim 16 the limitation the method according to claim 8, further comprising: outputting a map matching result reflecting internal connection probabilities between position coordinates and external connection probabilities between road links by using a machine learning model as set forth in these claim(s).
The dependent claims, being further limiting to these claims, definite and enabled by the Specification are also allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as teaching, inter alia, the state of the art of server based vehicle control at the time of the invention. For example:
US 6349259 B1 to Sato; Hiroyuki teaches, inter alia Navigation apparatus and information generating apparatus in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“A navigation apparatus includes: a first position information generating device that generates first position information as current position information regarding the navigation apparatus based upon a signal received from outside; a second position information generating device that generates second position information as current position information based upon another signal received from outside; and a control device that implements control to provide route guidance based upon current position information and map information. And the control device uses the first position information as effective current position information if a position corresponding to the first position information generated by the first position information generating device is within an error range set for a position corresponding to the second position information generated by the second position information generating device.”.
US 20030227395 A1 to Zeineh, Rashid A. teaches, inter alia Vehicular safety system and method in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“A relatively low cost but effective vehicular safety system includes a navigational status determination system generating navigational status information, an alarm response system generating alarm responses in response to alarm response command information and a data processing system. The data processing system stores a list of safety zones having one or more safety conditions for each safety zone. The data processing system receives the navigational status information and compares the received navigational status information to the stored safety conditions. If a safety condition is found to be violated the data processing system communicates a response command to the alarm response system. Depending upon the severity of the violated safety condition, the alarm response system notifies the vehicle operator of the violation, notifies law enforcement authorities external to the vehicle of the violation or takes some other safety response. In an extreme condition, the alarm response system assumes control over some aspect of the operation of the vehicle such as steering or engine control.”.
US 20040236476 A1 to Chowdhary, Mahesh teaches, inter alia Vehicle safety management system that detects speed limit violations in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“A Vehicle Safety Management System ("VSM") detects safe driving behavior in a vehicle. The system includes a plurality of unsafe driving events, including tailgating, frequent lane changes, speed limit violation, speed limit violation over a curved segment of road, rapid acceleration from a start, and rapid deceleration to a stop. The vehicle is equipped with an event detection module. The event detection module includes a circuit that acquires vehicle data for parameters associated with movement of the vehicle. The event detection module also includes a processor for executing algorithms that determine whether movement of the vehicle meets one or more pre-determined conditions. If the pre-determined conditions are met, event data for one or more unsafe driving events are generated. The event detection module includes a transceiver to send and receive data between the vehicle and a server. The server presents event data to a customer so as to allow the customer to view unsafe driving behavior data for the customer's fleet. For example, the application server may generate reports that detail the unsafe driving events for a driver, vehicle, condition, etc.”.
US 20090138188 A1 to Kores; Andrej et al. teaches, inter alia METHOD, DEVICE AND SYSTEM FOR MODELING A ROAD NETWORK GRAPH in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“There is provided a method, device and system for modeling a road network graph, comprising the steps of receiving information data from a plurality of vehicles, said information data comprising at least positional data, and modeling said road network graph in accordance with said received data.”.
US 20100185571 A1 to SAWADA; Tsutomu teaches, inter alia INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“An information processing apparatus includes a plurality of information input units inputting information including image information or sound information in a real space, an event detection unit analyzing input information from the information input units so as to generate event information including estimated position information and estimated identification information of users present in the real space, and an information integration processing unit setting hypothesis data regarding user existence and position information and user identification information of the users in the real space and updating and selecting hypothesis data based on the event information so as to generate analysis information including user existence and position information and user identification information of the users in the real space.”.
US 20140229279 A1 to Hohs; Cory James teaches, inter alia PROVIDING ADVERTISING CONTENT BASED ON A MAP REPORT in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“Advertising content may be provided based on a map report. A map report may be received from a client device. The map report may be indicative of a perceived inaccuracy in geographic data stored in a geographic database. Advertising content may be provided to the client device based on the map report received from the client device.”.
US 20150057831 A1 to Finlow-Bates; Keir teaches, inter alia Navigation Using Dynamic Speed Limits in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“Method, computer program product, and apparatus for providing navigation guidance to vehicles are disclosed. In some implementations, a navigation device can be configured to determine a dynamic speed limit for a vehicle based on the location of the vehicle in a road segment, and displays the dynamic speed limit in a display of the navigation device.”.
US 10029685 B1 to Hubbard; Jonathan et al. teaches, inter alia Vehicle speed limiter in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“The present disclosure is directed to apparatus, methods, and non-transitory storage medium for controlling the maximum speed of a vehicle as that vehicle travels along a route. Apparatus and methods consistent with the present disclosure may receive location information from an electronic device that is located at a vehicle and may provide information to the electronic device at that controls the maximum speed of the vehicle as speed limits change along the route.”.
US 20210009161 A1 to KIM; Jihyun et al. teaches, inter alia PATH PROVIDING DEVICE AND PATH PROVIDING METHOD THEREOF in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“A path providing device for a vehicle configured to communicate with a repeater includes: a telecommunication control unit configured to perform communication with the repeater, and a processor. The processor is configured to receive, from the repeater, EHP information comprising at least one of an optimal path providing a direction with respect to one or more lanes or autonomous driving visibility information in which sensing information is merged with the optimal path, and distribute the received EHP information to at least one electrical part disposed at the vehicle.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LAWSON GREENE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6876. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-THUR 7-5:30PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 20260905
Prosecution Insights