Patent Application 17937279 - COMMUNICATION METHOD

Title: COMMUNICATION METHOD

Application Information

Invention Title: COMMUNICATION METHOD
Application Number: 17937279
Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2022-09-30T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2022-09-30T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 701
National Sub-Class: 023000
Examiner Employee Number: 90395
Art Unit: 3668
Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 2

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

US 0393837🔗
US 0351261🔗

Office Action Text

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 .

In response to amendment filed 05/01/2025, claims 1, 10-11 have been amended. No claims are new.

Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims recite, “wherein the the processer”. Please correct this to “wherein the processor”. Appropriate correction is required.

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 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an [AltContent: connector]abstract idea without significantly more.
[AltContent: connector]101 Analysis – Step 1
[AltContent: connector]Claim 1 is directed to a method of communicating between multiple components of an event chain for an at least semi-automated driving function of a motor vehicle. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for communicating between multiple components of an event chain for an at least semi-automated driving function of a motor vehicle, each of the multiple components being a communication user of a publish-subscriber network, the method comprising the following steps:
publishing a first message using a first component of the multiple components;
sending the first message to a second component of the multiple components; and
receiving the first message using the second component.
wherein at least one of the multiple components includes a digital map and a processor, wherein the the processer publishes a message to the publish-subscriber network that includes at least one section of the digital map in which the motor vehicle is located.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and pen/paper. For example, “publishing…” is merely analogous to how a person draft and publish a message to adjacent user using pen/paper. The content of the message can simply be a written comment about event chain for semi-automated driving function of a motor vehicle. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 describes a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea. The case discusses receiving, screening, and distributing email message on a computer network and courts have found this to be an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
A method for communicating between multiple components of an event chain for an at least semi-automated driving function of a motor vehicle, the multiple components being communication users of a publish-subscriber network, the method comprising the following steps:
publishing a first message using a first component of the multiple components;
sending the first message to a second component of the multiple components; and
receiving the first message using the second component.
wherein at least one of the multiple components includes a digital map and a processor, wherein the the processer publishes a message to the publish-subscriber network that includes at least one section of the digital map in which the motor vehicle is located.
For the following reason, 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 “publish-subscriber network” the examiner submits that this limitation is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h). This limitation does not meaningfully limit the claim because claim merely employs and utilizes generic computer function to execute an abstract idea. Also, it merely indicates entity that claimed users belong to.
Regarding the additional limitations of “multiple components includes a digital map and a processor…processor publishes a message…,” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (a processor) to perform the process. In particular, the publishing step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data from determined step), and amounts to mere data transmitting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding the additional limitations of “sending…”, “receiving…” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a generic computer (a processor) to perform the process. In particular, the sending and receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means providing data from one location to another), and amounts to mere data receiving/transmitting, 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 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 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 element of “publish-subscriber network” and “publishing…” 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 “publish-subscriber network” the examiner submits that these limitations are merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h). Also, the additional limitations of “sending…”, “receiving…” “multiple components includes a digital map and a processor…processor publishes a message…,” 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 “publish-subscriber network”, “multiple components includes a digital map and a processor…processor publishes a message…,”, “sending…”, “receiving…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the utilizing network for autonomous vehicles and transmitting data are well-known (background of specification recites 3 prior art references, “U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0393837 A1 describes a method for the trajectory planning of autonomous vehicles, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0351261 A1 describes an autonomous vehicle, German Patent Application No. DE 10 2019 215 815 A1 describes a vehicle control system” which routinely performs data (i.e. message) transmitting/receiving) and specification does not provide any indication that the processor/server network is anything other than a conventional computer/server network of a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere communication of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 7-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-4 and 7-9 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-4, 7-9 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claims 10-11 recite same or substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore claims 10-11 are rejected under same rationale.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.

The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.

Claims 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “each of the multiple components being a communication user…” and “multiple components includes a digital map and a processor”. It is confusing and unclear to the Examiner exactly what claimed “multiple component” is. For example, preamble of the claim states that each of the multiple components is a communication user, where broadest reasonable interpretation drawn to term “user” is “a person or human being”. Even in the technological field of computing, term “user” is generally used to refer a person using computing machine, and not part of computing data or hardware component (e.g. a digital map or a processor). Ultimately, claim requires that at least one of the “users” includes a digital map and a processor. It is unclear how the person can be the digital map and/or the processor. Original specification fails to provide explicit definition of the term “user” or “communication users”. Please correct usage of the term “user” (e.g. with a broader term that can reasonably encompass digital map and a processor). For the purpose of prior art analysis, Examiner assumes “communication user” as “communication entity”. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under similar rationale

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.

Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumcad et al. (US 20190173951 A1) in view of Adenwala et al. (US 20210303137 A1), and further in view of Alawieh; Ali et al. (US 20200192400 A1)

In regards to claim 1, Sumcad teaches, A method for communicating between multiple components of an event chain for an at least … driving function of a motor vehicle, each of the multiple components being a communication user of a publish-subscriber network, the method comprising the following steps: (See paragraph 87-88, fig. 1, abstract, communication between vehicle, remote facility 18, mobile device 14, remote computer 16, broker 60 using publish-subscribe messaging protocol. Ignition start command, for example, is one of the driving functions that can be communicated)
publishing a first message using a first component of the multiple components;
sending the first message to a second component of the multiple components; and
receiving the first message using the second component. (See fig. 2, paragraphs 89-91, the vehicle publishes or sends a publish message to the messaging broker. In one embodiment, the payload of the publish message includes information pertaining to the present state of the vehicle, such as the vehicle information obtained in step 220. For example, when the vehicle desires to send information pertaining to its ignition system, the vehicle can generate a publish message that includes a topic name of “ignition.”… once the messaging broker 60 receives the published message from vehicle 12 and processes the publish message, the messaging broker 60 can recall from memory those client devices that are subscribed to the topic of which was specified in the publish message. Once the message is sent to all of the subscribed client devices,)
Sumcad does not specifically teach, communication being related to at least semi-automated driving function of a motor vehicle.
Adenwala further teaches, at least semi-automated driving function (See abstract, fig. 8, paragraphs 133-134, communication between vehicles 152-1 and 152-3 about vehicle platooning function for autonomous vehicle)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Sumcad to further comprise semi-automated driving capability/function taught by Adenwala because vehicle platooning capability provides several benefits; such as improved fuel efficiency, safety, and reducing congestion. It would have been desirable to include automated driving function to improve user’s driving experience.
Sumcad-Adenwala teaches publishing position information from vehicle to the remote location of publish-subscriber network (paragraphs 54, 60, vehicle 12, mobile device 14, computers 16, and/or remote servers 82 all may be configured as client devices that use a publish-subscribe messaging protocol to communicate messages with one another via messaging broker 60.), however, does not specifically disclose sending at least portion of digital map comprising vehicle’s location to the external/remote location. Examiner notes that Sumcad-Adenwala already discloses publish-subscriber network.
Alawieh further teaches, wherein at least one of the multiple components includes a digital map and a processor, wherein the processor publishes a message to the …network that includes at least one section of the digital map in which the motor vehicle is located. (See paragraph 29, vehicle position in the digital map may be transmitted to a central server, for example, to provide the server with an instantaneous and accurate digital road map of the surroundings of the vehicle that may also be retrieved and used by further HAVs. The transmission of data inherently requires usage of processor. See paragraphs 26-30, control unit)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Sumcad-Adenwala to further comprise digital map transmission further taught by Alawieh because Alawieh provides an improved method for operating a higher-level automated vehicle (HAV), in particular a highly automated vehicle, and an improved driver assistance system for controlling a higher-level automated vehicle (HAV), in particular a highly automated vehicle, in which road changes with regard to a road status stored in a digital map, which is also referred to in short as a map error, may be detected early and reliably (paragraphs 4 and 8).

Claims 10-11 are similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.

In regards to claim 2, Sumcad-Adenwala-Alawieh teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the first message is published on a particular topic, the first message being sent to the second component as a function of whether the second component has subscribed to the particular topic. (See Sumcad fig. 2, paragraphs 89-91, the vehicle publishes or sends a publish message to the messaging broker. In one embodiment, the payload of the publish message includes information pertaining to the present state of the vehicle, such as the vehicle information obtained in step 220. For example, when the vehicle desires to send information pertaining to its ignition system, the vehicle can generate a publish message that includes a topic name of “ignition.”… once the messaging broker 60 receives the published message from vehicle 12 and processes the publish message, the messaging broker 60 can recall from memory those client devices that are subscribed to the topic of which was specified in the publish message. Once the message is sent to all of the subscribed client devices,)

In regards to claim 3, Sumcad-Adenwala-Alawieh teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the first message is sent to the second component as a function of whether an attribute and/or a content of the first message corresponds to a limitation defined using the second component. (Specification fails to provide explicit definition of what it means by “limitation defined”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner assumes “limitation defined” as subscription defined by second component. (See Sumcad fig. 2, paragraphs 89-91, the vehicle publishes or sends a publish message to the messaging broker. In one embodiment, the payload of the publish message includes information pertaining to the present state of the vehicle, such as the vehicle information obtained in step 220. For example, when the vehicle desires to send information pertaining to its ignition system, the vehicle can generate a publish message that includes a topic name of “ignition.”… once the messaging broker 60 receives the published message from vehicle 12 and processes the publish message, the messaging broker 60 can recall from memory those client devices that are subscribed to the topic of which was specified in the publish message. Once the message is sent to all of the subscribed client devices. As noted above, information pertaining to its ignition system match with second component that is subscribed to the “ignition”)

In regards to claim 4, Sumcad-Adenwala-Alawieh teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the second component publishes a second message based on the first message, which is sent to a third component of the multiple components. (See Sumcad paragraph 88, a user may use mobile device 14 to send a vehicle command to the vehicle through use of messaging broker 60 and, in response to the vehicle receiving and/or processing the command, the vehicle can then obtain information as to whether the command was actually carried out and a vehicle state associated with the vehicle command. For example, upon receiving an ignition start command, the vehicle can start the ignition, and then gather information as to the vehicle's engine, such as the revolutions per minute (RPM) or the engine temperature, which can then be reported back to the mobile device 14 via the messaging broker 60 (see step 230). The method 200 continues to step 230.)

In regards to claim 5, Sumcad-Adenwala-Alawieh teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the multiple components are each an element selected from the following group of components: (i) surroundings sensor, (ii) actuator sensor of the motor vehicle, (iii) inertial sensor of the motor vehicle, (iv) wheel rotation speed sensor of the motor vehicle, (v) steering sensor of the motor vehicle, (vi) main control unit of the motor vehicle, (vii) actuator control unit of the motor vehicle, (viii) digital map, (ix) system for controlling a transverse guidance and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle including a steering system of the motor vehicle and/or a drive system of the motor vehicle and/or a braking system of the motor vehicle. (The claim is a conditional limitation which requires selection of only one. See Sumcad paragraph 87, the vehicle can obtain information regarding the vehicle state. The obtained information can then be packaged into the payload of a publish message, such as a PUBLISH message according to the MQTT protocol, which can then be published to the messaging broker (see step 230)… information concerning one or more states of the vehicle, vehicle system modules (VSMs), an operator or user of the vehicle, a passenger of the vehicle, or the environment surrounding the vehicle can be obtained… the obtained information can include any or all information that was obtained through use of a vehicle sensor installed in the vehicle. This information can be obtained using various VSMs, such as through use of a body control module (BCM) located on the vehicle, ECU 24, GNSS module 22, wireless communications device 30, microphone 56, pushbutton 52, or any other VSM 42.)

In regards to claim 6, Sumcad-Adenwala-Alawieh teaches the method as recited in claim 4, wherein the first component is a surroundings sensor which detects surroundings of the motor vehicle, the first message includes surroundings data, which represent the detected surroundings, the second component is a control unit of the motor vehicle, the third component is a system for controlling a transverse guidance and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle, the control unit ascertaining a control command for controlling a transverse guidance and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle based on the surroundings data, the second message including the control command, the system for controlling a transverse guidance and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle controlling the transverse guidance and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle based on the control command. (See Sumcad, paragraph 87, the vehicle can obtain information regarding the vehicle state. The obtained information can then be packaged into the payload of a publish message, such as a PUBLISH message according to the MQTT protocol, which can then be published to the messaging broker (see step 230)… information concerning one or more states of the vehicle, vehicle system modules (VSMs), an operator or user of the vehicle, a passenger of the vehicle, or the environment surrounding the vehicle can be obtained… the obtained information can include any or all information that was obtained through use of a vehicle sensor installed in the vehicle. Also see paragraph 88, controlling motor vehicle through vehicle command via mobile device 14 via second message. Sumcad is not limited to just ignition start command but lists variety of other information/commands (par. 32, 87, 93). Sumcad does not specifically disclose third component that controls transverse guidance and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicie. Adenwala further discloses in paragraphs 62, 133, fig. 6, 8 and associated paragraphs, performing platoon capabilities among plurality of vehicles that include longitudinal/lateral motion control through exchanging data)

In regards to claim 7, Sumcad-Adenwala-Alawieh teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the second component communicates in which time cycle the second component expects a message from the first component, the first message being sent to the second component based on the time cycle. (See Sumcad paragraphs 81, 94, 101, 103, 106, message should be sent to second component within specified amount of time, otherwise, the connection is disconnected. )

In regards to claim 8, Sumcad-Adenwala-Alawieh teaches the method as recited in claim 7, wherein the publish-subscriber network includes a broker to which the first message is sent, the broker sending the first message to the second component. (See Sumcad fig. 2 and paragraphs 89-91, broker 60 receives the published message from vehicle 12 and sends the message to the subscribers)

Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumcad et al. (US 20190173951 A1) in view of Adenwala et al. (US 20210303137 A1), in view of Alawieh; Ali et al. (US 20200192400 A1), and further in view of Camacho et al. (US 20170324667 A1)

In regards to claim 9, Sumcad-Adenwala-Alawieh teaches the method as recited in claim 8.
Sumcad-Adenwala-Alawieh does not specifically teach, wherein the second component communicates the time cycle to the broker, the broker prompting the first component to send the first message to the broker based on the time cycle.
Camacho further teaches, wherein the second component communicates the time cycle to the broker, the broker prompting the first component to send the first message to the broker based on the time cycle. (See fig. 2, paragraph 28, The user may send vehicle action requests and receive communications from the vehicle 12 and/or remote facility 80 by way of the application 92…paragraphs 29, a vehicle action request may be sent from the mobile device to a central office or remote facility… The remote facility 80 may facilitate the vehicle action request, e.g., by receiving the request from the mobile device 90, sending the command to the vehicle 12, and/or tracking a status of the vehicle 12 with respect to the request….paragraph 30, a status update frequency may be determined based upon at least one real-time characteristic….paragraph 34, a status of the vehicle action request may be made if the wait time dictated by the status update frequency has expired. For example, mobile device 90 may have a timer or counter which counts down according to the instructed status update frequency of block 220. Upon expiration of the wait time, the mobile device 90 may check with the back office or remote facility 80 to request a status update on the vehicle action request. Also see paragraph 38)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Sumcad-Adenwala-Alawieh to further comprise method taught by Camacho because improved communication such as status update between vehicle and user can be achieved through considering various factors such as temperature (par. 3, 33).

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2025 on 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Concerning the 35 USC 101 rejection, applicant contends that the rejection has been rendered moot with the amendment to the claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Data transmission from one location to another which includes sending and receiving is merely an insufficient extra solution activity, as identified and defined by the court. The mere inclusion of a “processor” to publish a message is not deemed sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection.
According to MPEP 2106.04(d), the courts have identified limitation that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);

Regarding the previous 35 USC 112, second paragraph, applicant states that rejection has been rendered moot with the amendment to the claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see rejection under 35 USC 112[b] set forth above regarding usage of term “user”. Therefore, the rejection has not been withdrawn.

Regarding the prior art rejection, the Applicant argues, “None of the cited references disclose or suggest that the digital map itself acts as a publisher of map sections in a publish-subscribe network. Rather, at most, the cited references alone, or in combination, relate to the vehicle’s state (e.g., location) but do not disclose the digital map actively publishing sections to a network. Moreover, the present claims relate to the digital map publishing its own data, i.e. the digital map’s role as an active publisher within a publish-sensitive system, which is different from simply transmitting vehicle state information”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that not only such disclosure is not being recited in the currently filed claims (e.g. applicant’s assertion that digital map itself acts as a publisher of map sections, however, nowhere in the currently filed claims require this), but also it is still unclear how digital map per se which is simply a computer data is capable of publishing a message. “Digital map” under the broadest reasonable interpretation is merely data bits and not a hardware component such as processor capable of performing function of publishing a message.

Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.

/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668