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 .
Claims 1-6 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “data acquisition unit” and “data providing unit” in claims 1, 3, and 4. See specification [0036-0044].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Under Step 1:
Claim 1 is an apparatus claim reciting an information processing device comprising a controller comprising a processor or circuit. Thus, claim 1 fall within the statutory category of a machine. Step 1: Yes.
Under Step 2A - Prong 1:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claim is analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter falling within one of the recognized groupings of abstract ideas: mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 1 recites: A video preview navigation system comprising a server communicably connected to a plurality of communication vehicles including a first vehicle and a second vehicle, wherein the server comprises:
a data acquisition unit configured to, when a first guided route is set in the first vehicle and the first vehicle passes through a preset driving decision point on the first guided route, acquire video data captured by a front camera of the first vehicle at the driving decision point, information of the driving decision point, and information of the first guided route; and
a data providing unit configured to, when a second guided route that at least partially overlaps with the first guided route is set in the second vehicle, provide the video data at the driving decision point to the second vehicle when the second vehicle heads toward the driving decision point where an overlapping route has a matching direction of passage.
The Examiner submits that claim 1 recites the abstract idea of evaluating route information to determine whether a route of a second vehicle corresponds to a previously traveled route at a driving decision point, including evaluating whether the routes overlap and have a matching direction of passage, and selecting corresponding previously captured visual information for presentation to the second vehicle. This constitutes a mental process.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a person responsible for assisting a driver with navigation could review a first route previously traveled by another vehicle, review a second route being followed by the driver, identify a point at which the two routes overlap, determine whether the two vehicles approach that point in the same direction, and select previously recorded visual information corresponding to that point and direction for presentation to the driver.
For example, a human navigation assistant could possess a map showing a first vehicle's route and a second vehicle's route together with recorded photographs or video clips associated with particular intersections or branch points. The person could compare the routes, determine that both routes pass through the same intersection in the same direction, select the recording corresponding to that intersection and direction, and provide that recording to the driver before the driver reaches the intersection.
The route comparison, directional comparison, identification of the applicable driving decision point, and selection of the corresponding information involve observations, comparisons, evaluations, and judgments that can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of maps, written route information, and stored visual information. The mental-process grouping includes observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can practically be performed in the human mind, even when a computer is recited to implement the process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The claim does not recite a particular algorithm for determining whether the first guided route and second guided route overlap, a particular mathematical representation of the routes, a particular map-matching algorithm, a particular algorithm for determining the matching direction of passage, or a particular computational technique for identifying the appropriate video data. Instead, the claim broadly recites the desired result of obtaining information associated with a previously traveled route, determining that another guided route overlaps that route at a relevant point with the appropriate direction of passage, and selecting corresponding visual information for the second vehicle.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of evaluating route and directional information to identify and provide corresponding navigation information, which constitutes a mental process.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2:
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claim is analyzed as a whole to determine whether any additional elements beyond the identified mental process integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitations beyond the identified mental process include: “a video preview navigation system”; “a server communicably connected to a plurality of communication vehicles including a first vehicle and a second vehicle”; “a data acquisition unit”; “a data providing unit”; the first and second communication vehicles; acquiring video data captured by a front camera of the first vehicle; acquiring information of the driving decision point and information of the first guided route; and electronically providing the selected video data to the second vehicle.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that these additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The recitation of a server communicably connected to a plurality of communication vehicles merely provides a computerized network environment in which the route-information evaluation and selection are performed. The claim does not recite a particular server architecture, processor architecture, distributed-processing arrangement, database structure, network topology, routing protocol, communication protocol, packet format, error-correction process, compression process, or other improvement to computer or network technology. Rather, the server performs its ordinary functions of receiving information, storing or accessing information, comparing information, and transmitting information. Merely using generic computing and networking components as tools to implement an abstract evaluation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The specification itself describes the server as a general computer including ordinary processor, storage, communication, and interface components, and describes the network broadly as including conventional wireless networks such as the Internet, mobile-terminal communication networks, or road-to-vehicle communication networks. Thus, the claimed server and network are not recited as specialized technological structures that themselves provide the asserted improvement.
The data acquisition unit merely obtains the information used in the subsequent abstract route comparison and video-selection process. It receives video data, information identifying the driving decision point, and information identifying the first guided route. Acquiring information that merely supplies the inputs to an abstract evaluation constitutes data-gathering activity and does not, without more, integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The front camera likewise supplies visual information that is subsequently associated with the driving decision point and evaluated in connection with the route information. Claim 1 does not recite an improved camera, an improved image sensor, a particular image-processing algorithm, an improved video-capture technique, or a technological improvement in the manner in which video is generated. The fact that the video originates from a physical camera does not change the nature of the claimed route comparison and information-selection process where the camera merely supplies information used by the system. Likewise, the data providing unit merely outputs the selected information after the route and directional criteria have been satisfied. Providing the selected video data to the second vehicle constitutes presentation or communication of the result of the abstract evaluation.
The claim does not recite a particular video-streaming technique, transmission-control mechanism, network-load-management technique, encoding method, buffering technique, latency-management process, or other technological mechanism governing how the video data is provided to the second vehicle. The recitation that the video data is associated with a “driving decision point” likewise limits the informational context in which the abstract evaluation occurs but does not recite a technological improvement.
The claim does not automatically control steering, braking, acceleration, lane changing, or another physical vehicle operation based on the selected video data. Rather, the video information is provided for use in assisting the driver's judgment. The claim therefore uses computers, cameras, communication vehicles, and a server as tools for obtaining route-related information and recorded visual information, evaluating which information corresponds to the second vehicle's route and direction, and presenting the selected information to the second vehicle. The asserted benefit that a driver can view visual information corresponding to an upcoming driving decision point even when the driver's own vehicle has not previously traveled that route concerns the usefulness and informational content of the material presented to the driver rather than an improvement to the functioning of the server, network, camera, car navigation device, or vehicle itself.
The claim does not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality, network communications technology, video-capture technology, image-processing technology, vehicle-control technology, or another technical field. Rather, existing technological components are used to implement the information acquisition, evaluation, selection, and presentation process.
The additional elements also do not transform a physical article into a different state or thing, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis, or otherwise impose a meaningful limitation on the route-information evaluation itself. Considered individually, the additional elements merely obtain route and video information, communicate that information to a server, execute the route and directional evaluation using the server, and transmit the selected information to another vehicle. Considered as an ordered combination, the limitations merely implement electronically the sequence of obtaining previously captured navigation information, determining whether another route corresponds to the recorded route and direction, selecting the appropriate visual information, and providing that information to the second vehicle.
Accordingly, claim 1 as a whole does not integrate the recited mental process into a practical application. Step 2A: Yes. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the Examiner evaluates whether the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the recited mental process.
The additional limitations of a server, communication vehicles, data acquisition unit, data providing unit, front camera, route information, video data, and network communication do not provide an inventive concept.
The server performs the ordinary computer functions of receiving, storing, processing, selecting, and transmitting information. The communication network provides ordinary data communication between vehicles and the server. The camera performs the ordinary function of capturing visual information. The data acquisition unit obtains information, and the data providing unit transmits the selected information.
These functions are recited at a high level of generality and are the types of generic computer, network, camera, and information-processing operations that merely provide the environment in which the abstract evaluation is implemented. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The claim does not recite a nonconventional arrangement in which the server, front camera, or communication vehicles operate in a new technological manner. Nor does the claim recite a particular algorithm that improves the manner in which route overlap, directional correspondence, or video selection is computationally determined. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements perform the same ordinary functions they perform individually: one vehicle captures and supplies information, the server obtains and evaluates the information, and the server supplies selected information to another vehicle when the specified informational criteria are satisfied.
The ordered combination therefore does not provide an inventive concept beyond implementing the abstract route-comparison and information-selection process using conventional computer, network, camera, and vehicle-navigation components.
Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 5:
Claims 2, 3, and 5 depend from claim 1 and therefore incorporate all of the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.1 discussed above.
Under Step 1:
Claims 2, 3, and 5 are apparatus claims comprising the video preview navigation system of claim 1. Thus, claims 2, 3, and 5 fall within the statutory category of a machine. Step 1: Yes.
Under Step 2A - Prong 1:
Claims 2, 3, and 5 continue to recite the mental process identified above and further recite additional information-selection, presentation, privacy-processing, and navigation-context limitations.
Claim 2 further recites: “a car navigation device mounted on the second vehicle and configured to provide the video data to a driver of the second vehicle in a picture-in-picture mode on a display of the second vehicle.”
Claim 3 further recites: “wherein the data providing unit executes a privacy protection process to delete privacy information included in the video data before providing the video data to the second vehicle, and wherein in the privacy protection process, at least information of a license plate of another vehicle traveling in front of the first vehicle is deleted.”
Claim 5 further recites: “wherein the driving decision point includes at least one of an entrance of a branch road, an interchange, a roundabout, a multi-lane tunnel, and toll booths provided in each of a plurality of lanes.”
The Examiner submits that these additional limitations do not remove the claims from the abstract information-evaluation and selection process identified with respect to claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, presenting the selected visual information together with navigation information in a picture-in-picture arrangement merely specifies the manner in which the result of the abstract evaluation is visually presented to the driver. A person can simultaneously view a primary navigation display and a secondary visual representation corresponding to an upcoming location. The claim does not recite a particular graphical-processing algorithm, display-memory arrangement, rendering technique, window-management technique, or improved human-machine-interface operation responsible for generating the picture-in-picture display. The substantive decision regarding which visual information is appropriate remains based on the same route and directional evaluation recited in claim 1.
With respect to claim 3, identifying privacy-sensitive information in visual information and removing or obscuring that information before presenting the visual information constitutes evaluating informational content and suppressing selected content according to a privacy criterion. For example, a person editing recorded navigation video could observe a license plate appearing in the video, determine that the license-plate information should not be disclosed, obscure or remove that portion of the image, and then provide the edited recording to another person. The claim does not recite a particular license-plate-detection algorithm, object-recognition technique, image-segmentation technique, masking algorithm, pixel-processing operation, neural-network architecture, or other specific technological technique for deleting the privacy information. Rather, claim 3 recites the desired result that specified privacy information, including license-plate information, is deleted before the video is provided. Accordingly, the claimed privacy determination remains an evaluation of informational content, followed by suppression of the identified content.
With respect to claim 5, identifying the relevant route location as an entrance of a branch road, interchange, roundabout, multi-lane tunnel, or toll booths merely defines particular types of locations at which the same route-comparison and visual-information-selection process is performed. A person reviewing a route map can identify whether a location is a branch road, interchange, roundabout, tunnel, or toll-booth area and can associate recorded visual information with that location. Limiting the abstract navigation evaluation to particular categories of roadway locations therefore does not alter the underlying nature of the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 2, 3, and 5 continue to recite the abstract idea identified with respect to claim 1 and additional mental evaluations directed to selecting, modifying, or presenting navigation information.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2:
The additional elements of claims 2, 3, and 5 do not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
Claim 2's car navigation device and picture-in-picture display merely provide a particular computerized presentation format for the selected information. The claim does not recite an improvement to display hardware, graphical rendering, memory utilization, display refresh, screen allocation, image compositing, or user-interface operation. Rather, the picture-in-picture mode merely specifies where and how the selected video information is displayed to the driver. Displaying the result of an abstract information-selection process, even in a specified screen arrangement, does not provide a technological improvement where the claimed display performs its ordinary function of visually presenting information.
Claim 3's privacy protection process likewise does not recite a technological implementation sufficient to integrate the abstract process into a practical application. The claim broadly requires the data providing unit to “delete privacy information” and specifically identifies license-plate information, but it does not recite how the license plate is detected, how the relevant region of the video is determined, or how the image is technologically altered. The specification contemplates conventional masking or other image-processing techniques, but the claim is not limited to any particular technical implementation. The claim therefore recites the desired informational result preventing disclosure of identifying information rather than an improvement to image-processing technology. The privacy limitation does not cause the computer or camera to operate more efficiently, accurately, securely, or reliably as a technological system. Rather, it changes the content of the information presented to another user.
Claim 5's account of particular roadway locations merely limits the field or context in which the abstract navigation process is applied. Specifying that the process occurs at a branch road, interchange, roundabout, multi-lane tunnel, or toll-booth area does not improve the underlying server, communications network, camera, navigation device, or vehicle. The dependent claims also do not automatically control the second vehicle in response to the selected video information. No steering, braking, acceleration, or other physical vehicle operation is performed as a result of the evaluation.
Considered individually, the additional limitations of claims 2, 3, and 5 merely specify a display format, remove selected informational content, or identify particular types of road locations.
Considered in combination with claim 1, the limitations continue to use generic computer, camera, navigation, display, and communication components to obtain information, evaluate route correspondence, select corresponding information, optionally modify the informational content, and present the information to a driver.
Accordingly, claims 2, 3, and 5 do not integrate the recited mental process into a practical application. Step 2A: Yes. Claims 2, 3, and 5 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the additional limitations of claims 2, 3, and 5, individually and in combination with the limitations of claim 1, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2's car navigation device, display, and picture-in-picture presentation perform ordinary display and navigation-device functions. The claim does not recite unconventional display hardware or an unconventional rendering process.
Claim 3's data providing unit performs the ordinary information-processing function of removing or suppressing selected visual information prior to transmission. The claim does not recite a particular unconventional image-processing implementation or technological architecture for identifying and deleting the license-plate information.
Claim 5 merely limits the process to particular roadway locations and does not add a technological component or unconventional computer operation.
The claimed components continue to perform only the generic functions of obtaining, transmitting, evaluating, selecting, modifying, and presenting information.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claims merely automate the process of selecting appropriate navigation imagery according to route and directional criteria, optionally editing the selected imagery for privacy, and displaying the selected information at specified types of roadway locations.
Accordingly, claims 2, 3, and 5 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 2, 3, and 5 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 6,
Under Step 1:
Claim 6 recites a control method for a video preview navigation system and therefore falls within the statutory category of a process. Step 1: Yes.
Under Step 2A - Prong 1:
Claim 6 recites: A control method for a video preview navigation system having a server communicably connected to a plurality of communication vehicles including a first vehicle and a second vehicle, the method comprising:
acquiring, when a first guided route is set in the first vehicle and the first vehicle passes through a preset driving decision point on the first guided route, video data captured by a front camera of the first vehicle at the driving decision point, information of the driving decision point, and information of the first guided route; and
providing, when a second guided route that at least partially overlaps with the first guided route is set in the second vehicle, the video data at the driving decision point to the second vehicle when the second vehicle heads toward the driving decision point where an overlapping route has a matching direction of passage.
The Examiner submits that claim 6 recites the same abstract mental process identified with respect to claim 1: evaluating route information to determine whether the route of a second vehicle corresponds to a previously traveled route at a driving decision point, including whether the routes overlap and have a matching direction of passage, and selecting corresponding previously captured visual information for provision to the second vehicle.
As discussed with respect to claim 1, a person assisting with navigation could review route information associated with two vehicles, identify where the routes overlap, determine whether the vehicles approach the location in the same direction, select previously recorded visual information associated with that location and direction, and provide the selected information to the driver.
These route-comparison and information-selection operations involve observations, comparisons, evaluations, and judgments that can practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of maps and stored visual information.
The physical acquisition of camera video and electronic transmission of that information are additional elements considered separately under Prong Two; they are not themselves characterized as mental acts.
The claim does not recite a particular route-overlap algorithm, map-matching technique, directional-comparison algorithm, geographic-data structure, or computational technique for identifying which video corresponds to the second vehicle's route.
Accordingly, claim 6 recites the abstract idea of evaluating route and directional information to identify and provide corresponding navigation information, which constitutes a mental process.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2:
The additional elements of claim 6 do not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The server and communication vehicles merely provide the computerized environment in which the information is obtained and exchanged.
Acquiring the video data, driving-decision-point information, and first-guided-route information supplies the data used in the subsequent route comparison and selection.
The front camera performs its ordinary function of recording visual information, and the server performs its ordinary functions of receiving, processing, selecting, and transmitting information.
Providing the selected video data to the second vehicle merely communicates the result of the abstract route evaluation.
Claim 6 does not recite an improved camera, improved server architecture, improved communication protocol, improved network operation, improved route-search algorithm, improved map-matching process, improved video-transmission technique, or physical vehicle-control operation.
The claimed method therefore uses conventional technological tools to perform the route-information evaluation and provide the resulting information to the driver.
The asserted benefit concerns providing useful visual information to assist the driver's navigation judgment, rather than improving the technological operation of the server, camera, communications network, or vehicle.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional limitations merely implement electronically the sequence of obtaining route and visual information, comparing route and directional information, selecting corresponding visual information, and transmitting the selected information to the second vehicle.
Accordingly, claim 6 does not integrate the recited mental process into a practical application. Step 2A: Yes. Claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the additional limitations of claim 6, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The server, communication vehicles, front camera, and communications network perform their ordinary functions of capturing, transmitting, receiving, processing, and presenting information.
The claim does not recite an unconventional arrangement of these components or a particular technological algorithm that changes the manner in which the components operate.
When considered as an ordered combination, the limitations merely automate the abstract sequence a person could use to select relevant navigation information: obtain information associated with a first route, compare a second route and travel direction with that information, identify corresponding visual information, and provide that information to the driver.
Accordingly, claim 6 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 6 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 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, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 20060271286 A1), in view of Imoto (JP H11160080 A), and further in view of Suzuki (JP 2005227912 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Rosenberg discloses a video preview navigation system comprising: a … communicably connected to a plurality of communication vehicles including a first vehicle and a second vehicle [0061] “an automated large-scale distributed system may be provided to manage sets of images of the same or similar locations that are captured by a plurality of image-enhanced vehicle navigation systems. In one embodiment, images captured (and received, inferred, derived, determined, and/or otherwise accessed correlation data associated therewith) by individual integrated image-enhanced vehicle navigation systems may be stored locally and periodically uploaded (e.g., via a two-way wireless network connection to a remote data store) to remote data store (e.g., the aforementioned remote data store) accessible by other users of image-enhanced vehicle navigation systems (integrated or otherwise). In this way, users of integrated image-enhanced vehicle navigation systems continuously update a centralized database, providing images of their local area (including highways, major streets, side streets, etc.)” (i.e., communicably connected to a plurality of communication vehicles). [0062] “the automated large-scale distributed system may include one or more remote processors (generically referred to simply as a remote processor).” (i.e., processing functionality for the plurality of communication vehicles). [0010] “capturing an image depicting a view corresponding approximately to a driver's perspective from within a first vehicle” and “transmitting the stored captured image to a user's vehicle navigation system,” wherein “the stored captured image can be transmitted to a vehicle navigation system of a second vehicle.” (i.e., including a first vehicle and a second vehicle).
a data acquisition unit configured to, when a first guided route is set in the first vehicle [0024] “route search processing software that searches a route from the present position to one of the candidates which has been selected by the operator, and displays the searched route on the display.” (i.e., when a first guided route is set in the first vehicle). [0044] “the local processor may be adapted to determine the direction of travel of a vehicle by accessing a planned route within the navigation system itself and the explicitly stated destination entered by the user into the system and inferring a direction of travel based upon the location of the vehicle along the planned route.” (i.e., when a first guided route is set in the first vehicle).
and the first vehicle passes through a preset driving decision point on the first guided route [0026] “The particular location may be final or destination location of a driving route or an intermediate location between a current location of the vehicle and the destination location (e.g., at a location where they need to make a turn, take an exit, or otherwise take some driving action or monitor their progress along a driving route).” (i.e., a preset driving decision point on the first guided route). [0037] “the local processor may be adapted to access a location database containing locations of streets, intersections, exits, etc., determine the current location of the vehicle, and instruct the camera to capture an image if it is determined that the vehicle is approaching a location within the location database.” (i.e., the first vehicle passes through a preset driving decision point on the first guided route).
captured by a front camera of the first vehicle at the driving decision point [0029] “the image capture system may be provided with a device such as a digital camera coupled to a vehicle such that the camera is aimed forward to capture images that are substantially similar to what a human driver would actually see when looking forward out the front windshield of a vehicle sitting in the driver's seat of the vehicle.” (i.e., captured by a front camera of the first vehicle). [0034] “Useful images are often captured as the vehicle is approaching an intersection.” (i.e., captured by a front camera of the first vehicle at the driving decision point).
information of the driving decision point [0041] “As will be described in greater detail below, correlation data can include location data (e.g., data indicating the GPS location of the vehicle, the street index (e.g., name) upon which the vehicle was located, etc.), the direction data indicating the direction of travel of the vehicle (e.g., with respect to the earth or with respect to a street upon which the vehicle was located), environmental data indicating environmental conditions (e.g., light data indicating lighting conditions, weather data indicating weather conditions, season data indicating seasonal conditions, traffic data indicating traffic conditions, etc.), and other data indicating date, time, vehicle speed, and the like, or combinations thereof.” (i.e., information of the driving decision point). and
a data providing unit configured to, when a second guided route that at least partially overlaps with the first guided route is set in the second vehicle [0083] “This feature involves a user accessing and viewing the most frequently updated image captured by a vehicle or vehicles traveling along the same planned route as the user's vehicle.” (i.e., when a second guided route that at least partially overlaps with the first guided route is set in the second vehicle). [0084] “A user of the system traveling on highway 101 may access a centralized database and request image data for locations ahead along the freeway. The images may have been updated only seconds or minutes prior, captured by vehicles traveling along the same street but further ahead.”, “In this way, the user can scroll the knob and quickly view the expected path of travel starting from just head and scrolling forward through the image database along the current path of travel, past intermediate destinations, to the final destination if desired. To achieve this, the local processor accessing (i.e., obtaining) images from the database correlates the accessed images with the planned route of travel.” (i.e., when a second guided route that at least partially overlaps with the first guided route is set in the second vehicle).
when the second vehicle heads toward the driving decision point where an overlapping route has a matching direction of passage [0010] “The stored captured image can be transmitted to a vehicle navigation system of a second vehicle when the second vehicle is following a route that is predicted to approach the location along the direction of travel.” (i.e., when the second vehicle heads toward the driving decision point where an overlapping route has a matching direction of passage). [0045] “a driver heading toward a particular location while driving in a northbound direction can access a northbound image of the particular location while a driver heading to that same particular location while driving in a southbound direction can access the southbound image of the particular location.” (i.e., when the second vehicle heads toward the driving decision point where an overlapping route has a matching direction of passage).[0085] “The local processor, accessing GPS data determines where on the planned route of travel the user's vehicle is currently located” and accesses the corresponding image from the centralized database, wherein “the vehicle's direction of travel is also used by the image display routines in determining which way upon a given street the user's vehicle is traveling.” (i.e., when the second vehicle heads toward the driving decision point where an overlapping route has a matching direction of passage).
Rosenberg does not expressly teach acquire video data, or provide the video data to the second vehicle and information of the guided route by the server.
However, Imoto teaches acquire information of the guided route by the server [0019] “a recommended route (optimum route) from the traveling position to the destination is registered. The route search unit 219 searches for the recommended route on the road map displayed on the display device 22. Here, the position information of each intersection in the recommended route searched by the route search unit 219 is transmitted to the information center 30 side through the image data processing unit 26, the communication circuit 25, and the mobile phone 24.” (i.e., information of the guided route). Imoto also expressly identifies the centralized storage as a server [0035] “The database 33 includes an updatable and rewritable recording device 37 (server) having a recording area of a predetermined capacity, and a searching device 38 for searching the photographed image information D3 recorded in the recording device 37 using the attribute information D5 as a key.” (i.e., a server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rosenberg with the teachings of Imoto to configure Rosenberg's centralized remote processor and remote data store to acquire information identifying the first guided route, including the predetermined driving decision points of the first guided route, because Imoto teaches transmitting the positions of the intersections belonging to the recommended route from the first vehicle to the information center and associating captured roadway imagery with those route-point positions.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Rosenberg and Imoto to improve the combination by allowing the centralized navigation system to efficiently collect, maintain, and provide current roadway imagery corresponding to predetermined decision points of a guided route. Imoto [0011] states that an object is to permit users “to use a variety of latest image information” and to construct an image database “without trouble by collecting information utilizing a user.”
Rosenberg and Imoto do not expressly teach acquiring “video data” and providing “the video data” to the second vehicle.
However, Suzuki teaches acquiring video data [0016] “The camera 4 is installed to take an image in front of the vehicle.” {0036] “the image of the predetermined point may be a moving image that is captured from a short time before the vehicle enters the intersection.” (i.e., video data captured by a front camera of the first vehicle at the driving decision point).
Suzuki further teaches providing the captured image data to another vehicle [0039] “The preceding vehicle CR-1 takes a picture of a predetermined point such as an intersection” and, when “the succeeding vehicle CR-2 reaches the point SP where it is difficult to determine the course, the image data from the navigation device of the vehicle CR-1 is sent to the navigation device of the vehicle.” [0010] “The image data collected in this manner is transmitted to an external mobile terminal device when a predetermined request signal is received.” (i.e., provide the video data to the second vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rosenberg and Imoto with the teachings of Suzuki to acquire moving video data the first vehicle approaches and passes the preset driving decision point and to provide that video data for use by the second vehicle, rather than limiting the preview information to individual still images.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Rosenberg, Imoto, and Suzuki to improve the combination by providing the second vehicle with more useful visual navigation information at a point where the correct direction of travel may be difficult to determine. Suzuki [0017] teaches that, by providing the captured image information, “the other party can arrive at the destination without hesitation at an intersection or the like where the determination of the traveling direction is easy to make an error.” Suzuki [0036] further expressly teaches using a “moving image” beginning before the vehicle enters the intersection.
Regarding Claim 5, The combination of Rosenberg, Imoto, and Suzuki teaches the video preview navigation system according to claim 1.
wherein the driving decision point includes at least one of an entrance of a branch road, an interchange, a roundabout, a multi-lane tunnel, and toll booths provided in each of a plurality of lanes.
Rosenberg teaches at least some wherein the driving decision point includes at least one of an entrance of a branch road, an interchange, a roundabout, a multi-lane tunnel, and toll booths provided in each of a plurality of lanes [0026] “The particular location may be final or destination location of a driving route or an intermediate location between a current location of the vehicle and the destination location (e.g., at a location where they need to make a turn, take an exit, or otherwise take some driving action or monitor their progress along a driving route).” (i.e., the driving decision point includes at least a roundabout or branch road exit).
Suzuki further teaches wherein the driving decision point includes at least one an entrance of a branch road, an interchange, a roundabout, a multi-lane tunnel, and toll booths provided in each of a plurality of lanes [0007] “if it is difficult to understand a user's journey after entering the branch road from the main road, it is convenient if a live-action image such as an intersection can be displayed on the visitor's navigation device.” (i.e., wherein the driving decision point includes at least one of an entrance of a branch road). [0011] “the predetermined point can be set based on attention information added to a branch point, a three-dimensional intersection, or a point that is difficult to confirm.” (i.e., wherein the driving decision point includes at least one of an entrance of a branch road). The claim requires at least one decision point which Rosenberg and Suzuki supplies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the driving decision point of the Rosenberg-Imoto-Suzuki system to include an entrance of a branch road, as taught by Suzuki, so that the preview data is acquired and provided at a location where the driver must select between diverging travel paths.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the entrance of a branch road as the driving decision point to improve the combination by assisting a driver at a location where route selection is difficult Suzuki [0007] expressly teaches that where it is difficult to understand the route “after entering the branch road from the main road, it is convenient if a live-action image can be displayed on the visitor's navigation device.”
Regarding Claim 6, Rosenberg discloses a control method for a video preview navigation system including a first vehicle and a second vehicle [0010] “Another exemplary embodiment disclosed herein provides a method of presenting images to a user of a vehicle navigation system that includes capturing an image depicting a view corresponding approximately to a driver's perspective from within a first vehicle.” (i.e., A control method for a video preview navigation system including a first vehicle). [0010] “The stored captured image can be transmitted to a vehicle navigation system of a second vehicle.” (i.e., including a first vehicle and a second vehicle). [0061] “an automated large-scale distributed system may be provided to manage sets of images ... captured by a plurality of image-enhanced vehicle navigation systems,” with images uploaded by “a two-way wireless network connection to a remote data store” accessible by other users. (i.e., communicably connected to a plurality of communication vehicles).
the method comprising:
acquiring, when a first guided route is set in the first vehicle [0024] “route search processing software that searches a route from the present position to one of the candidates which has been selected by the operator, and displays the searched route on the display.” (i.e., when a first guided route is set in the first vehicle). [0044] “the local processor may be adapted to determine the direction of travel of a vehicle by accessing a planned route within the navigation system itself and the explicitly stated destination entered by the user into the system and inferring a direction of travel based upon the location of the vehicle along the planned route.” (i.e., when a first guided route is set in the first vehicle).
and the first vehicle passes through a preset driving decision point on the first guided route [0026] “The particular location may be final or destination location of a driving route or an intermediate location between a current location of the vehicle and the destination location (e.g., at a location where they need to make a turn, take an exit, or otherwise take some driving action or monitor their progress along a driving route).” (i.e., a preset driving decision point on the first guided route). [0037] “the local processor may be adapted to access a location database containing locations of streets, intersections, exits, etc., determine the current location of the vehicle, and instruct the camera to capture an image if it is determined that the vehicle is approaching a location within the location database.” (i.e., the first vehicle passes through a preset driving decision point on the first guided route).
captured by a front camera of the first vehicle at the driving decision point [0029] “the image capture system may be provided with a device such as a digital camera coupled to a vehicle such that the camera is aimed forward to capture images that are substantially similar to what a human driver would actually see when looking forward out the front windshield of a vehicle sitting in the driver's seat of the vehicle.” (i.e., captured by a front camera of the first vehicle). [0034] “Useful images are often captured as the vehicle is approaching an intersection.” (i.e., captured by a front camera of the first vehicle at the driving decision point).
information of the driving decision point [0041] “As will be described in greater detail below, correlation data can include location data (e.g., data indicating the GPS location of the vehicle, the street index (e.g., name) upon which the vehicle was located, etc.), the direction data indicating the direction of travel of the vehicle (e.g., with respect to the earth or with respect to a street upon which the vehicle was located), environmental data indicating environmental conditions (e.g., light data indicating lighting conditions, weather data indicating weather conditions, season data indicating seasonal conditions, traffic data indicating traffic conditions, etc.), and other data indicating date, time, vehicle speed, and the like, or combinations thereof.” (i.e., information of the driving decision point). and
providing when a second guided route that at least partially overlaps with the first guided route is set in the second vehicle [0083] “This feature involves a user accessing and viewing the most frequently updated image captured by a vehicle or vehicles traveling along the same planned route as the user's vehicle.” (i.e., when a second guided route that at least partially overlaps with the first guided route is set in the second vehicle). [0084] “A user of the system traveling on highway 101 may access a centralized database and request image data for locations ahead along the freeway. The images may have been updated only seconds or minutes prior, captured by vehicles traveling along the same street but further ahead.”, “In this way, the user can scroll the knob and quickly view the expected path of travel starting from just head and scrolling forward through the image database along the current path of travel, past intermediate destinations, to the final destination if desired. To achieve this, the local processor accessing (i.e., obtaining) images from the database correlates the accessed images with the planned route of travel.” (i.e., when a second guided route that at least partially overlaps with the first guided route is set in the second vehicle).
when the second vehicle heads toward the driving decision point where an overlapping route has a matching direction of passage [0010] “The stored captured image can be transmitted to a vehicle navigation system of a second vehicle when the second vehicle is following a route that is predicted to approach the location along the direction of travel.” (i.e., when the second vehicle heads toward the driving decision point where an overlapping route has a matching direction of passage). [0045] “a driver heading toward a particular location while driving in a northbound direction can access a northbound image of the particular location while a driver heading to that same particular location while driving in a southbound direction can access the southbound image of the particular location.” (i.e., when the second vehicle heads toward the driving decision point where an overlapping route has a matching direction of passage).[0085] “The local processor, accessing GPS data determines where on the planned route of travel the user's vehicle is currently located” and accesses the corresponding image from the centralized database, wherein “the vehicle's direction of travel is also used by the image display routines in determining which way upon a given street the user's vehicle is traveling.” (i.e., when the second vehicle heads toward the driving decision point where an overlapping route has a matching direction of passage).
Rosenberg does not expressly teach acquire video data, or provide the video data to the second vehicle and information of the guided route by the server.
However, Imoto teaches acquire information of the guided route by the server [0019] “a recommended route (optimum route) from the traveling position to the destination is registered. The route search unit 219 searches for the recommended route on the road map displayed on the display device 22. Here, the position information of each intersection in the recommended route searched by the route search unit 219 is transmitted to the information center 30 side through the image data processing unit 26, the communication circuit 25, and the mobile phone 24.” (i.e., information of the guided route). Imoto also expressly identifies the centralized storage as a server [0035] “The database 33 includes an updatable and rewritable recording device 37 (server) having a recording area of a predetermined capacity, and a searching device 38 for searching the photographed image information D3 recorded in the recording device 37 using the attribute information D5 as a key.” (i.e., a server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rosenberg with the teachings of Imoto to configure Rosenberg's centralized remote processor and remote data store to acquire information identifying the first guided route, including the predetermined driving decision points of the first guided route, because Imoto teaches transmitting the positions of the intersections belonging to the recommended route from the first vehicle to the information center and associating captured roadway imagery with those route-point positions.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Rosenberg and Imoto to improve the combination by allowing the centralized navigation system to efficiently collect, maintain, and provide current roadway imagery corresponding to predetermined decision points of a guided route. Imoto [0011] states that an object is to permit users “to use a variety of latest image information” and to construct an image database “without trouble by collecting information utilizing a user.”
Rosenberg and Imoto do not expressly teach acquiring “video data” and providing “the video data” to the second vehicle.
However, Suzuki teaches acquiring video data [0016] “The camera 4 is installed to take an image in front of the vehicle.” {0036] “the image of the predetermined point may be a moving image that is captured from a short time before the vehicle enters the intersection.” (i.e., video data captured by a front camera of the first vehicle at the driving decision point).
Suzuki further teaches providing the captured image data to another vehicle [0039] “The preceding vehicle CR-1 takes a picture of a predetermined point such as an intersection” and, when “the succeeding vehicle CR-2 reaches the point SP where it is difficult to determine the course, the image data from the navigation device of the vehicle CR-1 is sent to the navigation device of the vehicle.” [0010] “The image data collected in this manner is transmitted to an external mobile terminal device when a predetermined request signal is received.” (i.e., provide the video data to the second vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rosenberg and Imoto with the teachings of Suzuki to acquire moving video data the first vehicle approaches and passes the preset driving decision point and to provide that video data for use by the second vehicle, rather than limiting the preview information to individual still images.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Rosenberg, Imoto, and Suzuki to improve the combination by providing the second vehicle with more useful visual navigation information at a point where the correct direction of travel may be difficult to determine. Suzuki [0017] teaches that, by providing the captured image information, “the other party can arrive at the destination without hesitation at an intersection or the like where the determination of the traveling direction is easy to make an error.” Suzuki [0036] further expressly teaches using a “moving image” beginning before the vehicle enters the intersection.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 20060271286 A1), in view of Imoto (JP H11160080 A), further in view of Suzuki (JP 2005227912 A), and further in view of Kim-490 (US 20120323490 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Rosenberg, Imoto, and Suzuki teaches the video preview navigation system according to claim 1.
Rosenberg discloses a car navigation device mounted on the second vehicle [0010] “The stored captured image can be transmitted to a vehicle navigation system of a second vehicle.” (i.e., a car navigation device mounted on the second vehicle).
configured to provide the video data to a driver of the second vehicle … on a display of the second vehicle [0026] “an image-enhanced vehicle navigation system includes a display screen 202 adapted to display images.” (i.e., on a display of the second vehicle). [0059] “The display screen of the particular image-enhanced vehicle navigation system can then be driven by the local processor to display the obtained image.” (i.e., configured to provide the data to a driver of the second vehicle on a display of the second vehicle). [0060] “the local processor is adapted to implement an image-enhanced navigation process allowing a driver of the particular vehicle to obtain and view an image of a particular location included within a determined route.” (i.e., configured to provide the data to a driver of the second vehicle on a display of the second vehicle).
The combination of Rosenberg, Imoto, and Suzuki does not expressly teach “in a picture-in-picture mode”
However, Kim-490 teaches a picture-in-picture mode on a display [0035] “The display unit 145 may be physically or logically divided into several pieces.” (i.e., a display of the vehicle). [0035] “a plurality of independent screens are displayed in a physically single display unit 145.” (i.e., a picture-in-picture mode on a display of the vehicle). [0103] “The image data may be output to the display unit (145 of FIG. 1) in a form of picture in picture (PIP) and navigation in picture (NIP). In order for a user to easily determine a starting point SP and a destination TP, the starting point SP and the destination TP may be output on the guide route SPL.” (i.e., in a picture-in-picture mode on a display of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rosenberg, Imoto, and Suzuki with the teachings of Kim-490 to configure the car navigation device mounted on the second vehicle to provide the video data to the driver of the second vehicle in a picture-in-picture mode on the display of the second vehicle.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Rosenberg, Imoto, Suzuki, and Kim-490 to improve the combination by permitting the driver to simultaneously view the preview information and navigation information without replacing the primary navigation display Kim-490 [0035] teaches that “a plurality of independent screens are displayed in a physically single display unit 145,” and [0103] teaches that “the image data may be output in a form of picture in picture (PIP) and navigation in picture (NIP).”
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 20060271286 A1), in view of Imoto (JP H11160080 A), further in view of Suzuki (JP 2005227912 A), and further in view of Kim-480 (US 20120323480 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Rosenberg, Imoto, and Suzuki teaches the video preview navigation system according to claim 1. Rosenberg discloses a car navigation device mounted on the second vehicle [0010] “The stored captured image can be transmitted to a vehicle navigation system of a second vehicle.” (i.e., a car navigation device mounted on the second vehicle).
providing the video data to the second vehicle [0026] “an image-enhanced vehicle navigation system includes a display screen 202 adapted to display images.” (i.e., on a display of the second vehicle). [0059] “The display screen of the particular image-enhanced vehicle navigation system can then be driven by the local processor to display the obtained image.” (i.e., configured to provide the data to a driver of the second vehicle on a display of the second vehicle). [0060] “the local processor is adapted to implement an image-enhanced navigation process allowing a driver of the particular vehicle to obtain and view an image of a particular location included within a determined route.” (i.e., configured to provide the data to a driver of the second vehicle on a display of the second vehicle).
The combination of Rosenberg, Imoto, and Suzuki does not teach wherein the data providing unit executes a privacy protection process to delete privacy information included in the video data before providing the data …, and wherein in the privacy protection process, at least information of a license plate of another vehicle traveling in front of the first vehicle is deleted.
However, Kim-480 teaches wherein the data providing unit executes a privacy protection process to delete privacy information included in the video data before providing the video data …, and wherein in the privacy protection process, at least information of a license plate of another vehicle traveling in front of the first vehicle is deleted [0099] “the first controller 170 may filter a specific object included in the image data received from the vehicle black box 200. That is, the first controller 170 can filter the specific object included in the image data received from the vehicle black box 200 by decreasing the resolution of the specific object to lower than a predetermined value. Here, the filtered object is an object that causes invasion of privacy or breaches the public interest when opened to the public and may include faces of people, license plates, etc. A method for decreasing the resolution of image data may use mosaic processing. FIG. 11 shows another example of processed image data including a filtered specific object.” (i.e., executes a privacy protection process to delete privacy information included in the video data and at least information of a license plate of another vehicle traveling in front of the first vehicle is deleted).
Kim-480 further teaches that the processing is performed before providing the video data [0119] “the third controller 73 transmits the received image data to the user terminal 80 (S507). Here, the third controller 73 may filter a specific object included in the image data and then transmit the filtered image data to the user terminal 80. For example, the third controller 73 can mosaic-process an object included in image data, which may cause invasion of privacy or breach the public interest and transmit the processed image data to the user terminal 80.” (i.e., executes a privacy protection process to delete privacy information included in the video data before providing the video data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rosenberg, Imoto, and Suzuki with the teachings of Kim-480 to configure the data providing unit to execute a privacy protection process to delete privacy information included in the video data before providing the video data to the second vehicle, including information of a license plate appearing in the forward-facing video. Because the combination captures video using the front camera of the first vehicle, Kim-480’s application expresses license-plate privacy filtering to that forward-facing video would predictably delete information of a license plate of another vehicle traveling in front of the first vehicle when such a vehicle appears in the video.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Rosenberg, Imoto, Suzuki, and Kim-480 to improve the combination by protecting privacy-sensitive identifying information before distributing captured roadway video to another user Kim-480 [0099] expressly teaches that the filtered object is an object that “causes invasion of privacy” and may include “license plates.”
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 20060271286 A1), in view of Imoto (JP H11160080 A), further in view of Suzuki (JP 2005 227912 A), and further in view of Kato (US 20250030767 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Rosenberg, Imoto, and Suzuki teaches the video preview navigation system according to claim 1.
Rosenberg discloses wherein such that the video data at the driving decision point is provided to the second vehicle before the second vehicle reaches the driving decision point [0026] “the image-enhanced vehicle navigation system allows users to preview specific views they will see from their own vehicle when they reach a particular location.” (i.e., the video data at the driving decision point is provided to the second vehicle before the second vehicle reaches the driving decision point). [0059] “The particular image-enhanced vehicle navigation system may also include circuitry adapted to predict or estimate when the user's vehicle will reach the particular location.” (i.e., before the second vehicle reaches the driving decision point). [0060] “if the driver is approaching a location such as a highway exit an image of that exit location may be accessed and presented to the driver.” (i.e., the video data at the driving decision point is provided to the second vehicle before the second vehicle reaches the driving decision point). [0084] “A user may access a centralized database and request image data for locations ahead along the freeway.” (i.e., the video data at the driving decision point is provided to the second vehicle before the second vehicle reaches the driving decision point).
The combination of Rosenberg, Imoto, and Suzuki does not teach wherein the data providing unit adjusts a transmission timing of the video data ... based on a data size of the video data to be provided, a network communication state of the server and the second vehicle, and an estimated time of arrival of the second vehicle at the driving decision point.
However, Kato teaches wherein the data providing unit adjusts a transmission timing of the video data based on a data size of the video data to be provided [0035] “the manager 300 may control the communicator 100 to start downloading the data necessary for the own vehicle at a point where an amount of downloadable data becomes larger than an amount of download data necessary.” (i.e., the data providing unit adjusts a transmission timing). [0040] “The first data amount calculator 311 calculates the amount of the download data necessary for the own vehicle.” (i.e., based on the data size of the video data to be provided). [0043] “The first data amount calculator 311 may calculate the necessary amount of the download data, based on a time period and an amount of the download data per unit time.” (i.e., based on the data size of the video data to be provided). [0056] “When the necessary amount of the download data is 500 MB, the communicator 100 may start downloading the data at timing when the own vehicle reaches a point P18. When the necessary amount of the download data is 1000 MB, the communicator 100 may start downloading the data at timing when the own vehicle reaches a point P8.” (i.e., adjusts a transmission timing based on a data size of the video data to be provided).
a network communication state of the server and the second vehicle [0028] “the communicator 100 may download data from an unillustrated storage such as a server.” (i.e., the server). [0050] “The storage 321 holds the amounts of the downloadable data that are linked with the respective pieces of the position data, based on the communication states for the respective pieces of the position data.” (i.e., a network communication state of the server and the second vehicle). [0087] “the communicator 100A may communicate with, for example, a communication target including a preceding vehicle 500 on the route along which the own vehicle is likely to pass before reaching the point where the communication state deteriorates, and thereby acquire the data on the necessary time period to travel from the current position of the own vehicle to each of the points on the route leading to the destination. In one embodiment, the preceding vehicle 500 may serve as a “second vehicle”.” (i.e., based on a network communication state of the server and the second vehicle).
an estimated time of arrival of the second vehicle at the driving decision point [0027] “the communicator 100 may communicate with a facility such as a traffic information center 400 to acquire data on a necessary time period to travel from a current position of the own vehicle to each of points on a route leading to a destination.” (i.e., an estimated time of arrival of the second vehicle at the driving decision point). [0054] “the necessary time period may be a time period necessary for the own vehicle to travel along the route.” (i.e., an estimated time of arrival of the second vehicle at the driving decision point).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rosenberg, Imoto, and Suzuki with the teachings of Kato to configure the data providing unit to adjust a transmission timing of the video data such that the video data at the driving decision point is provided to the second vehicle before the second vehicle reaches the driving decision point, based on a data size of the video data to be provided, a network communication state of the server and the second vehicle, and an estimated time of arrival of the second vehicle at the driving decision point.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Rosenberg, Imoto, Suzuki, and Kato to improve the combination by ensuring that the entire preview video is received before the second vehicle reaches the driving decision point notwithstanding variations in video-data size and communication conditions Kato [0020] explains that an earlier technique has “no mechanism that determines at which timing downloading is to be started to complete downloading the necessary data before the vehicle enters the incommunicable region.” Kato [0077] further teaches that the disclosed configuration “helps to hold in advance a sufficient amount of the download data necessary in the incommunicable region where the communication state deteriorates.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Mohammad (US-20200202703-A1) teaches a vehicle communication system in which a server receives front-facing camera video from a first vehicle and provides the video to another vehicle, including vehicles traveling in the same navigation direction along a roadway. Jung (US-20220364874-A1) teaches a vehicle navigation system using an external server to select an image-providing vehicle and acquire and provide camera imagery associated with a guide point located on a route set for a requesting vehicle. Nakagawa (US-20220247976-A1) teaches a connected vehicle camera system in which a remote data server receives image data from a plurality of vehicles and coordinates the sharing and delivery of vehicle-captured roadway images to another vehicle based on vehicle location, navigation data, and current routes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSAM ALZATEEMEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571) 270-3832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUSSAM ALDEEN ALZATEEMEH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/CHRISTOPHER GEORGE FEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
