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
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on September 29, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. EP24206165.3, filed on October 11, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 29, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 13, & 17 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method for prefetching map data for a drive of a vehicle without route guidance. Claim 13 is directed to a system comprising at least one processing unit configured to execute instructions to perform a method. Claim 17 is directed to a computer-readable medium storing instructions. Therefore, claims 1, 13, & 17 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step2A, 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 follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case independent claims 1, 13, & 17 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain 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:
A computer-implemented method for prefetching map data for a drive of a vehicle without route guidance, the method comprising:
obtaining first map data comprising first map tiles, the first map data relating to a geographic area, the geographic area including a current position of the vehicle;
determining a first predicted path for the vehicle based on the first map data and the current position of the vehicle;
determining, based on the first map data and the first predicted path, an indication of a further trajectory of the vehicle; and
obtaining, based on the indication, second map data comprising at least one second map tile.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold 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, “determining a first predicted path for the vehicle based on the first map data and the current position of the vehicle” in the context of this claim encompasses predicting a path for a vehicle based on data. “determining, based on the first map data and the first predicted path, an indication of a further trajectory of the vehicle” in the context of this claim encompasses predicting a trajectory based on the predicted path. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 13 & 17, which is of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, prong I.
101 Analysis – Step2A, 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 idea 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”):
A computer-implemented method for prefetching map data for a drive of a vehicle without route guidance, the method comprising:
obtaining first map data comprising first map tiles, the first map data relating to a geographic area, the geographic area including a current position of the vehicle;
determining a first predicted path for the vehicle based on the first map data and the current position of the vehicle;
determining, based on the first map data and the first predicted path, an indication of a further trajectory of the vehicle; and
obtaining, based on the indication, second map data comprising at least one second map tile.
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 of “obtaining first map data comprising first map tiles, the first map data relating to a geographic area, the geographic area including a current position of the vehicle” and “obtaining, based on the indication, second map data comprising at least one second map tile” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use generic processors to perform the processes. In particular both “obtaining first map data comprising first map tiles, the first map data relating to a geographic area, the geographic area including a current position of the vehicle” and “obtaining, based on the indication, second map data comprising at least one second map tile” steps amount to mere data collection, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 – Step2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 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 elements of “obtaining first map data comprising first map tiles, the first map data relating to a geographic area, the geographic area including a current position of the vehicle” and “obtaining, based on the indication, second map data comprising at least one second map tile” amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “obtaining first map data comprising first map tiles, the first map data relating to a geographic area, the geographic area including a current position of the vehicle” and “obtaining, based on the indication, second map data comprising at least one second map tile” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “obtaining first map data comprising first map tiles, the first map data relating to a geographic area, the geographic area including a current position of the vehicle” and “obtaining, based on the indication, second map data comprising at least one second map tile” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP 2106.05(g), and the cases cited therein, including CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); indicate that mere data gathering is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Claims 13 & 17 are also not patent eligible for the same reasons as stated in the above claim 1 rejection.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-16, & 18-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-12, 14-16, & 18-20, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on the same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 1-20 are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11, 13-14, 16-18, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2007/0219708 A1, to Brasche et al., hereafter Brasche.
Regarding Claim 1, Brasche discloses A computer-implemented method for prefetching map data for a drive of a vehicle without route guidance, the method comprising: obtaining first map data comprising first map tiles, the first map data relating to a geographic area, the geographic area including a current position of the vehicle (Brasche [0061]-[0063] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Brasche discloses a first map, 202 (i.e. first map tiles) which indicates the position of a user (i.e. vehicle) surrounded by geography on highway, 206);
determining a first predicted path for the vehicle based on the first map data and the current position of the vehicle; determining, based on the first map data and the first predicted path, an indication of a further trajectory of the vehicle; and (Brasche [0062]-[0063] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Brasche discloses based on prior environmental and contextual information, a caching module, 210, anticipating the user would continue to travel down the first highway 206, and past the intersection with the second highway, 208 (i.e. determining a predicted path and indication of a further trajectory of the vehicle);
obtaining, based on the indication, second map data comprising at least one second map tile (Brasche [0062]-[0063] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Brasche discloses the caching module, 210 using a previously stored second map 202a (i.e. second map tile), to indicate the vehicle traveling past the intersection).
Regarding Claim 2, Brasche further discloses The computer-implemented method for prefetching according to claim 1, wherein the first predicted path extends towards a boundary of the first map data (Brasche Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Brasche discloses the predicted path in view 202 extending to the right side of the display which would extend to the second map, 202a).
Regarding Claim 3, Brasche further discloses The computer-implemented method for prefetching according to claim 1, wherein determining the indication is based on an end point of the first predicted path and an orientation at the end point of the first predicted path (Brasche Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Brasche discloses the predicted path in view 202 having an end point at the edge of the frame and a particular orientation which is shown by the outlined version of the vehicle in 202a).
Regarding Claim 4, Brasche further discloses The computer-implemented method for prefetching according to claim 1, wherein the first predicted path comprises a path that the vehicle is expected most likely to follow during the drive without route-guidance (Brasche [0062], Examiner Note: Brasche discloses the caching module, 210, anticipating that the user will continue past the intersection rather than turning on the second highway 208 (i.e. most likely path to follow)).
Regarding Claim 5, Brasche further discloses The computer-implemented method for prefetching according to claim 1, wherein determining the indication of the further trajectory of the vehicle is based on extrapolating the first predicted path beyond the first map data (Brasche [0029]-[0030], Examiner Note: Brasche discloses the moving direction estimator using linear and nonlinear extrapolations to predict the path based on stored points).
Regarding Claim 8, Brasche further discloses The computer-implemented method for prefetching according to claim 1, wherein the determining of the indication is further based on at least one of: a geometry of the first predicted path within a vicinity of an end point of the first predicted path; a curvature along the first predicted path within the vicinity of the end point of the first predicted path; a distance or direction between the current position of the vehicle and the end point of the first predicted path; a functional road class at the end point of the first predicted path; and a current, an averaged, or an expected velocity of the vehicle (Brasche [0061]-[0062], Examiner Note: Brasche discloses determining the predicted path based on the end of an intersection area (i.e. functional road class)).
Regarding Claim 9, Brasche further discloses The computer-implemented method for prefetching according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the second map data comprises at least one of: obtaining second map tiles intersecting with the indication (Brasche Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Brasche discloses the second view, 202a, intersecting the predicted path of the vehicle in view 202); and obtaining second map tiles, wherein at least one second map tile is located adjacent to at least one of the first map tile (Brasche Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Brasche discloses the second view, 202a, adjacent to the first view 202).
Regarding Claim 11, Brasche further discloses The computer-implemented method for prefetching according to claim 1, wherein determining the first predicted path comprises determining at least one sub-path branching off the first predicted path based on the first map data (Brasche [0062] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Brasche discloses a second highway, 208, (i.e. sub-path) which branches off the predicted path, first highway, 206);
the method further comprising: determining, based on at least one sub-path, a further indication of a potential further trajectory of the vehicle (Brasche [0062]-[0063] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Brasche further discloses a dotted-line version of the vehicle (i.e. potential further trajectory of the vehicle)); and obtaining, based on the further indication, further second map data comprising at least one further second map tile. (Brasche [0064] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Brasche discloses a third map, 202b, which would be second map data if the vehicle had turned onto the second highway).
With respect to Claim 13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to Claim 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 3. Therefore, claim 14 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
With respect to Claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 8, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 8. Therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 8.
With respect to Claim 17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1 aside from where shown below. Therefore, claim 17 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
A computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer (Brasche [0100] & Fig. 8, Examiner Note: Brasche discloses the location based caching system having a processor, 802, and a memory, 804)…
With respect to Claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 3. Therefore, claim 18 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
With respect to Claim 20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 8, and it has been determined that claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 8. Therefore, claim 20 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 8.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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 6-7, 10, 12, 15, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0219708 A1, to Brasche et al., hereafter Brasche as applied to claims 1, 13, & 17 above, and further in view of US 2009/0281718 A1, to Gibran et al., hereafter Gibran.
Regarding Claim 6, as shown above, Brasche discloses The computer-implemented method for prefetching according to claim 1,
However, Brasche does not specifically disclose further comprising: obtaining a second predicted path, based on the first predicted path and the second map data, wherein the second predicted path extends the first predicted path at least over a part of the second map data.
Gibran, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: obtaining a second predicted path, based on the first predicted path and the second map data, wherein the second predicted path extends the first predicted path at least over a part of the second map data (Gibran [0080] & Figs. 9-10, Examiner Note: Gibran discloses while on a first predicted path, Hwy2, a second predicted path with a second tile, either Hwy 3 or Hwy1, is generated which include either Hwy3 or Hwy 1 (extension of Hwy 2)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the location-based caching system of Brasche with the capability to have an extension of a first path via a tile of Gibran in order for a real-time map to be generated in a low-quality over-the-air bandwidth location (Gibran [0003]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 7, Brasche discloses The computer-implemented method for prefetching according to claim 1, further comprising: determining, based on the second map data and the second predicted path, a second indication of a further trajectory of the vehicle Brasche [0062]-[0063] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Brasche discloses the caching module, 210 using a previously stored second map 202a, to indicate the vehicle traveling past the intersection (i.e. second predicted path and trajectory)); and
However, Brasche does not specifically disclose obtaining, based on the second indication, third map data comprising at least one third map tile.
Gibran teaches obtaining, based on the second indication, third map data comprising at least one third map tile (Gibran [0082] & Fig. 11, Examiner Note: Gibran teaches the device anticipating downloading more tiles for an anticipated route (e.g. Area 4)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the location-based caching system of Brasche with the capability to have an extension of a second path via a tile of Gibran in order for a real-time map to be generated in a low-quality over-the-air bandwidth location (Gibran [0003]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 10, Brasche discloses The computer-implemented method for prefetching according to claim 1,
However, Brasche does not specifically disclose wherein determining at least part of the first predicted path is based on requests of at least one client of a plurality of clients of the vehicle, wherein the at least one client comprises an advanced driver assistance system or a user interface.
Gibran teaches wherein determining at least part of the first predicted path is based on requests of at least one client of a plurality of clients of the vehicle, wherein the at least one client comprises an advanced driver assistance system or a user interface (Gibran [0072], Examiner Note: Gibran teaches the predictive map data download technology being initiated by launching a map application which requires input by the user (i.e. user interface)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the location-based caching system of Brasche with the capability to download a map when predicting travel of Gibran in order for a real-time map to be generated in a low-quality over-the-air bandwidth location (Gibran [0003]-[0005]).
With respect to Claim 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 11, and it has been determined that claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 11 since Claim 12 merely repeats the process of claims 1 & 11 with no meaningful changes. Therefore, claim 12 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 11.
With respect to Claim 15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 6. Therefore, claim 15 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
With respect to Claim 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 6. Therefore, claim 19 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0126130 A1 (Jeong, Byungil) discloses map tiles with a prediction component which can generate probability maps for vehicles, pedestrians, and other objects
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights