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 .
Status of the Claims
This 1st final action is in response to applicant's amendment of Nov. 18, 2025. Claims 1-7 have been cancelled. Claims 8-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Examiner's response
Applicant's amendments/arguments with respect to the Specification Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive; Therefore, the objections to the Specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the objections to the Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections to the Drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections of claims under 35 USC §112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections to claim under 35 USC §112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicants argued that the last limitation “carrying out the vehicle function via predicting the operating parameters for the vehicle based on the most probable route, wherein the vehicle function comprises vehicle energy management and/or navigation guidance” in each of claims 8-10 cannot be performed mentally and the same limitation constitutes an additional element that integrates the alleged mental process.
Examiner respectfully disagrees such argument. The last limitation provides that the vehicle function comprises vehicle energy management and/or navigation guidance. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), energy management doesn’t actually need to be carried out. When carrying out the vehicle function which is navigation guidance (which applicants admitted in their arguments), the navigation guidance may merely display the most probable route that has been determined. Such carrying out the vehicle function which is navigation guidance doesn’t integrate into practical application as discussed in the MPEP (and Electric Power Group). Claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: A claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In addition, the step of “carrying out … “ is also recited at a high level of generality. The navigation guidance may merely display the most probable route that has been determined, and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Such limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 are is maintained herein. Please see the session of 101 rejection for details.
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 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 ( updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention ( process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A ( PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A ( PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Analysis ( 35 U.S.C 101) for independent claim 8
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
With regard to STEP 2A ( PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices ( including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions ( including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people ( including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind ( including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 8 recites the limitations of a method of operating a device that carries out a vehicle function, wherein the vehicle function predicts operating parameters for the vehicle over a prediction horizon based on a most probable route of a digital map having a plurality of route sections, the method comprising:
in the absence of a specified destination, determining the most probable route of the vehicle over the prediction horizon by:
receiving, for each route section of the plurality of route sections, a corresponding functional road class for the route section, wherein the functional road class ranks the usability of the route section as determined from historical use data indicating the historical amount of the use of the route section by the vehicle fleet,
selecting a next route section from the plurality of route sections, wherein the next route section is adjacent to a next junction in a direction of travel from a current route section and has a corresponding functional road class that outranks the functional road classes of other route sections adjacent to the next junction, and
joining the next route section to the current route section so as to thereby determine the most probable route; and
carrying out the vehicle function via predicting the operating parameters for the vehicle based on the most probable route, wherein the vehicle function comprises vehicle energy management and/or navigation guidance.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at received data- a functional road class which ranks the usability of the route section, mentally selects/determines a next route section from the plurality of route sections.
The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04( a)( 2)( III), the courts consider a mental process ( thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 ( Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 ( citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 ( 1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ( "‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" ( quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 ( 1978) ( same). As such, a person looking at received data- a functional road class which ranks the usability of the route section, selects/determines a next route section from the plurality of route sections, either mentally or using a pen and paper. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
With regard to Step 2A, whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element ( or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
A method of operating a device that carries out a vehicle function, wherein the vehicle function predicts operating parameters for the vehicle over a prediction horizon based on a most probable route of a digital map having a plurality of route sections, the method comprising:
in the absence of a specified destination, determining the most probable route of the vehicle over the prediction horizon by:
receiving, for each route section of the plurality of route sections, a corresponding functional road class for the route section, wherein the functional road class ranks the usability of the route section as determined from historical use data indicating the historical amount of the use of the route section by the vehicle fleet,
selecting a next route section from the plurality of route sections, wherein the next route section is adjacent to a next junction in a direction of travel from a current route section and has a corresponding functional road class that outranks the functional road classes of other route sections adjacent to the next junction, and
joining the next route section to the current route section so as to thereby determine the most probable route; and
carrying out the vehicle function via predicting the operating parameters for the vehicle based on the most probable route, wherein the vehicle function comprises vehicle energy management and/or navigation guidance.
Claim 8 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Additional limitation of receiving, for each route section of the plurality of route sections, a corresponding functional road class for the route section in claim 8 recited at a high level of generality ( i.e., as a general means of gathering data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
In addition, the step of “carrying out … “ is also recited at a high level of generality. As discuss above Examiner's response section, the navigation guidance may merely display the most probable route that has been determined, and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Such limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 8 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional ( WURC) activity in the field. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the the determining step are performing using anything other than a conventional computer. 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 performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner ( as it is here).
Conclusion
Thus, since claim 8 is: ( a) directed toward an abstract idea, ( b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and ( c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 8 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claims 9 and 10 are similar to claim 8, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the same analysis applied to claim 8 above.
Still further, the additional limitation is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 11-20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, in claim 14, the addition limitations of “the historical use data specify an average movement velocity of the vehicles on the route sections within a predetermined time period” are further steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using a similar analysis applied to claim 8 above.
Therefore, claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention( s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102( b)( 2)( C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102( a)( 2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-10, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fulop ( EP 2551639 A1 machine translation) in view of Rajendran (US 20170059342) in view of Alex (DE 102018215973 A1 Machine translation)
Regarding claim 8, Fulop teaches a method of operating a device that carries out a vehicle function, wherein the vehicle function predicts operating parameters for the vehicle over a prediction horizon based on a most probable route of a digital map having a plurality of route sections ( abstract, The method comprises the steps of collecting traffic information about each road segment covered by the vehicle at each junction reached by the same vehicle, the pre-loaded or online map data, carry out vehicle navigation function), the method comprising:
receiving, for each route section of the plurality of route sections, a corresponding functional road class ( pages 2-3, Q-value is defined for each route alternatives) for the route section ( Figs. 1 and 2, While the vehicle is heading towards the next possible junction ( e.g. crossroads), the available route alternatives are continuously calculated. With taking into account all the possible circumstances ( traffic regulation, weather, etc.)),
selecting a next route section from the plurality of route sections, wherein the next route section is adjacent to a next junction in a direction of travel from a current route section and has a corresponding functional road class that outranks the functional road classes of other route sections adjacent to the next junction ( pages 2-3, based on at least one pre-set navigation mode, calculating route alternatives containing the road segments running from the next junction to the destination, Fig. 3 indicating the rank of the various directions from next junction, the route to right outranks the other two routes ( turning left and forward) );
joining the next route section to the current route section so as to thereby determine the most probable route ( pages 2-3, a ranking unit to rank the said route alternatives, the user is given route alternatives have the highest Q-value, the junction ( e.g. crossroads) is left behind, the optimal route is recalculated if needed ); and
carrying out the vehicle function so as to set predict the operating parameters for the vehicle based on the most probable route in lieu of a vehicle navigation determined most probable route, wherein the vehicle function comprises vehicle energy management and/or navigation guidance ( pages 2-3, notifying the user and displaying the routes ( navigation guidance) A display, which is able to display a map or at least the icons of the maneuvers on the device and/or in a projected form ( e.g. on the vehicle's, If more than one road segments are ranked as optimal according to a given navigation mode, the user will also be informed about the order of the road segments listed according to the given navigation mode; limitation “so as to set the operating parameters for the vehicle” is intended to use).
While Fulop teaches wherein the functional road class ( Q-value) ranks the usability of the route section based on weather, traffic information ( usability of the route based traffic regulation, weather...), Fulop does not explicitly teach but Rajendran teaches wherein the functional road class ranks the usability of the route section as determined from historical use data indicating the historical amount of the use of the route section by the vehicle fleet ([0016] Route recommendation server 150 may receive requests and provide route recommendations to user devices 110, as described herein below with respect to FIGS. 5-8. Route recommendation server 150 may analyze travel data and consolidate multiple traffic route data for motor vehicles 120 based on similar routes and associated travel data, such as a time of day, type of road (e.g., highway or local roads), etc. Route recommendation server 150 may retrieve usage statistics associated with the start and destination points in response to requests for route recommendations from mobile devices 110. Route recommendation server 150 may determine and provide a recommendation 145 for an optimal route to the mobile device 110 along with other recommended routes. [0021] route recommendations between a particular location and destination may be provided based on the popularity of routes traveled by users(fleet usage). The recommended routes may be sorted or ranked based on popularity and additional factors, such as types of roads, time of day, tolls, etc. the routes may be sorted based on additional factors or combination of factors, such as road surface information, safety condition information (based on, for example, past accident records, re-paving status, line painting); etc. The methods may provide route recommendations based on routes traveled by previous users with corresponding (or matching) travel parameters (historical data). [0040] Travel data collection module 510 may collect and store travel data (historical data) from users sent from mobile devices 110 via, e.g., network 170. Travel data collection module 510 may compile usage statistics for different routes or segments or routes based on information included in the travel data, such as a time, GPS location, intermediate destinations, etc. Travel data collection module 510 may index the routes (rank) based on a time of day, a time of year, types of roads, availability of detours, etc. [0041] Route analysis module 520 may analyze travel data from different mobile devices 110 (and motor vehicles 120) to identify a number of users that use a particular segment of routes ( amount of the use of the route section) , such as described below with respect to FIG. 6. Route analysis module 520 may determine a number of users following a particular route from a source (e.g., a first GPS location) to a destination (e.g., a second GPS location). Route analysis module 520 may classify different routes according to a relative time of trip. [0043] [0047] Segment ranking logic 630 may rank segments of a route (e.g., a particular section of a highway or road) based on the popularity of a particular route among the users of mobile devices 110. Segment ranking logic 630 may also provide additional rankings based on factors relevant to the user, such as overall time, distance, number of stops, etc. Segment ranking logic 630 may identify a number of users that use a particular segment during a particular time window. Segment ranking logic 630 may also extrapolate traffic volume based on the number of users that travel along that segment (e.g., an estimate based on the percentage of drivers that are users of the route recommendation system). Fig. 8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, ranking the possible heading directions ( directions of flow) at junctions, as taught by Fulop, the functional road class ranking the usability of the route section as determined from historical use data indicating the historical amount of the use of the route section by the vehicle fleet, as taught by Rajendran, as Fulop and Rajendran are directed to vehicle control ( same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using being determined from historical use data indicating the historical amount of the use of the route section by the vehicle fleet ( abstract, Rajendran ) to select a candidate route.
Fulop as modified by Rajendran does not explicitly teach but Alex teaches the limitation in the absence of a specified destination, determining the most probable route of the vehicle over the prediction horizon (an earlier behavior of the driver may be used as input for a way estimate. For example, if the driver regularly drives to and from work at certain times around, the vehicle may assume that the destination is home or work, if the driver is using the vehicle during such periods, and the most probable route is that Driver takes daily).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, ranking the possible heading directions ( directions of flow) at junctions, as taught by Fulop as modified by Rajendran, determining the most probable route of the vehicle in the absence of a specified destination, as taught by Alex, as Alex, Fulop and Rajendran are directed to vehicle control ( same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility determining the most probable route of the vehicle in the absence of a specified destination to optimize routes.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 8, which is commensurate in scope to claims 9 and 10, with claim 8 being drawn to a method, claim 9 being drawn to a corresponding a device, and claim 10 being drawn to a corresponding apparatus. Please note: Fulop teaches a digital map having route sections and both Fulop and Rajendran teaches having functional road classes assigned to the route sections in claim 10 (Fulop, Q-value, Rajendran, [0040] indexing routes ).
Regarding claim 13, Fulop does not explicitly teach but Rajendran teaches specific limitations of wherein the historical use data specify a navigation frequency of the route sections ([0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 14, Fulop does not explicitly teach but Rajendran teaches specific limitations wherein the historical use data specify an average movement velocity of the vehicles on the route sections within a predetermined time period ([0015]).
Regarding claim 15, Fulop does not explicitly teach but Rajendran teaches specific limitations wherein the functional road classes for the route sections are also assigned depending on times of day ([0012], [0016]).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Fulop ( EP 2551639A1) as modified by Rajendran (US 20170059342 A1) in view of Alex(DE 102018215973 A1 Machine translation) in view of Maru ( US 20180238697 A1)
Regarding claim 11, Fulop as modified by Rajendran as modified by Alex does not explicitly teach but Maru teaches wherein a first and second road section of the road sections to be joined have a same functional road class, and the method further comprises: selecting only one of the first and second road sections to be joined, wherein the selected road section to be joined induces a smaller angle of a direction change of the vehicle when compared with a preceding route section than the unselected road section ( [0006]calculating a route with the smallest sum of link costs( [0085] The cost sum of the coupled candidate route is ( the cost of the first partial route C) +( the cost of the sec and partial route D)+( coupling cost). Several items are conceivable as to what to take into consideration for the calculation of the coupling cost. Only the cost of the link between the nodes a and b may be the couple cost, or an angular cost of the mergence into the node a maybe taken into consideration ( e.g., cost such as time determined beforehand according to the size of an included angle formed when the route extends from the departure point S and merges into a link between the node a and the node b at the node a, the included angle being formed by the travelling direction of the vehicle and the direction of the corresponding lane). Furthermore, the cost calculated for the node c of the original candidate route includes the angular cost of mergence from the node e to the node b, and therefore the difference between this angular cost and the angular cost of passing the node b from the node a in the coupled candidate route may be taken into consideration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, ranking the possible heading directions ( directions of flow) at junctions, as taught by Fulop as modified by Rajendran modified by Alex, joining road segments in a smaller angle of a direction change, as taught by Maru, as Alex, Fulop, Rajendran and Maru directed to vehicle control ( same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using joining road segments in a smaller angle of a direction change ( [0001], Maru) and predictably applied it to low the possibility that a route including a difficult-to-travel section.
Regarding claim 12, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 11, which is commensurate in scope to claim 11, with claim 11 being drawn to a method and claim 12 being drawn to a corresponding apparatus.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Fulop ( EP 2551639 A1) in view of Rajendran ( US 20170059342 A1) in view of Alex (DE 102018215973 A1 Machine translation) in view of Chen ( US 20200064846 A1)
Regarding claim 16, Fulop as modified by Rajendran modified by Alex does not explicitly teach but Chen teaches the specific limitations wherein the functional road classes are assigned precisely by lane for multilane route sections ( [0006] road-level data is generally limited to a number of road segments meeting at a given intersection ( 3-way intersection, 4-way intersection, 5-way intersection, etc.), a name for each road segment, a speed limit for each road segment, and basic lane alignment information. Lane-level data for a given road segment, on the other hand, may include: a total number of lanes ( single-lane road, two-lane, two-way road, two-way road with center turn lane, etc.); a number of left-hand turn lanes ( if any), a number of right-hand turn lanes ( if any), and a number of straightaway lanes ( if any); turning rules for each lane ( e.g., dedicated right-turn only, dedicated left-turn only, straight and left-turn lane, etc.); virtual trajectory data ( e.g., making turn onto street with option of multiple lanes), etc., [0015]-[0016], [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, ranking the possible heading directions ( directions of flow) at junctions, as taught by Fulop as modified by Rajendran modified by Alex, the functional road classes are assigned precisely by lane for multilane route sections, as taught by Chen, as Alex, Fulop, Chen, Rajendran and are directed to vehicle control ( same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using the functional road classes being assigned precisely by lane for multilane route sections to improve in a transport network.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Fulop ( EP 2551639 A1) in view of Rajendran( US 20170059342 A1) in view of Alex (DE 102018215973 A1 Machine translation) in view of Chen( US 20200064846 A1)
Regarding claim 17, Fulop as modified by Rajendran modified by Alex does not explicitly teach but Chen teaches the specific limitations wherein the functional road classes are assigned precisely by lane for multilane route sections ( [0006] road-level data is generally limited to a number of road segments meeting at a given intersection ( 3-way intersection, 4-way intersection, 5-way intersection, etc.), a name for each road segment, a speed limit for each road segment, and basic lane alignment information. Lane-level data for a given road segment, on the other hand, may include: a total number of lanes ( single-lane road, two-lane, two-way road, two-way road with center turn lane, etc.); a number of left-hand turn lanes ( if any), a number of right-hand turn lanes ( if any), and a number of straightaway lanes ( if any); turning rules for each lane ( e.g., dedicated right-turn only, dedicated left-turn only, straight and left-turn lane, etc.); virtual trajectory data ( e.g., making turn onto street with option of multiple lanes), etc., [0015]-[0016], [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, ranking the possible heading directions ( directions of flow) at junctions, as taught by Fulop as modified by Rajendran modified by Alex, the functional road classes are assigned precisely by lane for multilane route sections, as taught by Chen, as Alex, Fulop and Chen, Rajendran are directed to vehicle control ( same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using the functional road classes being assigned precisely by lane for multilane route sections to improve in a transport network.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Fulop ( EP 2551639A1) in view of Rajendran ( US 20170059342 A1) in view of Alex (DE 102018215973 A1 Machine translation) in view of Yasunori ( JP 2010286318A machine translation)
Regarding claim 18, Fulop as modified by Rajendran modified by Alex does not explicitly teach but Yasunori teaches the limitation of the vehicle function is a lane change assistant function or an automatic lateral guidance function of the vehicle ( the search mode … a lane change frequency priority mode; the route with the smallest number of lane changes may be extracted without considering the roundabout limitation without considering time and distance. when displaying the route extracted in the search mode, the number of lane changes is displayed in the text box 40 ( see FIG. 2), so the user grasps the number of lane changes in addition to time and distance, etc. And the convenience of the navigation device 1 can be improved; it can utilize for the vehicle-mounted navigation apparatus which searches the route | route to a destination and guides a user. the number of lane changes is displayed when the route extracted in the search mode is displayed. a lane change position is displayed on the route extracted in the search mode ( lane change assistant).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, ranking the possible heading directions ( directions of flow) at junctions, as taught by Fulop as modified by Rajendran modified by Alex, vehicle function being a lane change assistant function or an automatic lateral guidance function of the vehicle, as taught by Yasunori, as Fulop, Rajendran, Alex, Yasunori are directed to vehicle control ( same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility vehicle function being a lane change assistant function or an automatic lateral guidance function of the vehicle and predictably applied it to guide a vehicle user.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 18, which is commensurate in scope to claims 19 and 20, with claim 18 being drawn to a method, claim 19 being drawn to a corresponding a device, and claim 20 being drawn to a corresponding apparatus.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. For example, Verma (US 20220146272 A1) teaching determining an optimal route ([0006] and estimating an amount of energy required to traverse each of the road segments based upon the current features of the road segments; The first method also includes determining a plurality of possible routes between the origin and the destination, with each of the possible routes including one or more of the plurality of road segments; and determining an optimal route (ranks the route sections) for a combination of energy consumption and time as one of the possible routes. [0029] system 20 may default to optimizing for travel time, energy consumption; Fig. 3-4, 9, and corresponding paragraphs including at least [0032] The system 20 also includes a second data source 14, which may be separate from or combined with the first data source 12, and which provides the server 24 with data regarding actual traversals of the plurality of road segments 36. The second data source 14 may provide real-time or historical actual speeds, positions, etc. from one or more vehicles (fleet)traveling on the plurality of road segments 36 (amount of the use of the route section). The second data source 14 may provide telemetry data collected from vehicles traversing the plurality of road segments 36. The second data source 14 may be associated with a fleet management or other vehicle-related service; [0038] big data; Such big Data sources may include one or more commercial carriers, …., or a data aggregation company such as Geotab. Either or both of the data sources 12, 14 may provide regularly-updated data. …. trip data may include speed data (amount of the use of the route section) updated at least 1 Hz, vehicle specifications, origin/destination, time/date, location, etc. The data sources 12, 14 may provide measured telemetry data such as fuel consumption etc.)
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 extension fee 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 JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm EST.
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/ interview practice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval ( PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center ( EBC) at 866-217-9197 ( toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 ( IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-100.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights