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 Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-14, 16-18, and 20 of US Application No. 18/077,021 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 13, 16, 17, and 20. Applicant previously canceled claims 3, 15, and 19.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 03 February 2025, regarding the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-14, 16-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that the independent claims do not recite a mental process. In particular, Applicant argues that 1) collecting probe data from a probe device cannot be performed in the human mind, 2) matching probe points to link segments defined by points within a geographic database depend on machine implementation and cannot practically be performed in the human mind, 3) distinguishing mismatched probe points from outliers using a signed h-value metric is a specialized computational technique tied to a particular technological context, and 4) processing probe point of probe data in real-time cannot be performed in the human mind. See REMARKS starting at page 13. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, whether or not probe data can be collected in the human mind is not relevant. The Examiner has identified “the probe data is collected using one or more location sensors of the probe device . . .” as an additional element, not as a mental process. Whether or not an additional element can or cannot be practically performed in the human mind is moot.
Second, matching probe points to link segments can be performed mentally, and the digital map data of the geographic database merely places the performance of the abstract idea in the context of computers. As discussed in the previous Detailed Action, dated 25 March 2026, the claimed road link data represents the positions of roads in a road network. The road link data includes shape points that are merely points along a link between two end nodes. See Specification at ¶ [0090]-[0094]. The claimed probe point, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a position where probe data is collected. A person having the probe point position and the road link data can mentally compare the position of the probe point to the positions of road links to determine a match, such as a positional match. Nothing in the claim precludes this matching from being performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. The map road link being stored in digital map data of a geographic database merely places the matching in the context of a computer. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Further, the MPEP provides examples of claims that can practically be performed in the human mind. A claim to collecting and comparing known information are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III-A. Matching the probe point to the road segment is an example of comparing known information.
Third, distinguishing mismatched probe points from outliers using a signed h-value metric is a mathematical concept. Applicant agrees that this recitation is a “computational technique”. That the computational technique is tied to a particular technological context, as asserted by Applicant, is not relevant.
Fourth, processing the probe points in “real-time” to determine a probe heading can still be performed mentally. Processing in real time does not place on limitation on the mental ability to determine the probe heading, as broadly reciting “real-time” processing encompasses whenever the probe point is processed, i.e., is not temporally related to anything other than the time of processing, which occurs at the time of mentally determining the probe heading. In addition, Applicant’s further amended the claim to recite “wherein determining the probe heading comprises computing the heading from the time-series location and motion data of the probe device”. This limitation, in light of Applicant’s amendments, is a mathematical concept, i.e., mathematical calculation. Therefore, even if “processing, in real-time, at least one probe point” was determined to not be a mental process, the limitation is still an abstract idea, i.e., mathematical concept.
Applicant then argues that the claims do not recite a mathematical concept. In particular, Applicant asserts that characterizing computation of an h-value metric as a mathematical concept improperly isolates a single limitation from the claims as a whole rather than as a specific application of a signed metric within a defined map matching workflow. Applicant ultimately asserts that the claims merely involve mathematical operations in the course of performing a specific technological function as opposed to reciting a mathematical concept. The Examiner notes the entirety of the subject claim limitation, i.e., “computing a magnitude of an h-value metric based on a difference between the probe heading and the link heading”. Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, the computed magnitude of the h-value metric is a function of the difference between the probe heading and the link heading. This is clearly a relationship between the h-value metric and probe and link headings, i.e., a mathematical relationship. In addition, the recitation "magnitude of an h-value metric based on a difference between the probe heading and the link heading", given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is merely a natural language presentation of the calculation M = f(angle a - angle b), where M is the magnitude, angle a is the probe heading, and angle b is the link heading. This is clearly a formula or equation written in text format, i.e., a mathematical formula or equation. Finally, computing the magnitude of the h-value metric requires determining a difference between the probe heading and the link heading. This difference between heading is a mathematical operation used to determine a variable or number, i.e., a mathematical calculation. Clearly, the instant claim recitation goes beyond merely involving a judicial exception, as it recites a mathematical relationship, mathematical formula or equation, and a mathematical calculation, which all fall into the abstract idea category of mathematical concepts. That the h-value metric magnitude computation is only one part of a sequence of operations does not change this analysis. The recitation is still a mathematical concept.
For all of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claim recites several abstract ideas, i.e., mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. The Examiner further maintains that nothing in the claims precludes the mental processes from being performed in the human mind.
Applicant then argues that the claims integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application when considered as a whole. Applicant states that “the claims require acquisition of probe data from multiple sensors, computation of probe heading from time-series data, segment-level map matching using structured geographic data, detection of mismatches using a signed metric based on heading relationships, filtering of mismatched probe points, and modification of navigation route guidance based on the filtered results”. As stated in MPEP 2106.04(d)II, “analysis under Step 2A Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon (including products of nature). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h).” The Examiner has identified “receiving probe data over a communication network from a probe device, wherein the probe data is collected using one or more location sensors of the probe device” and “outputting, via a user interface of a navigation application, a lane-closure alert, a change-lane instruction, or a combination thereof based on an output of the map matching” as additional elements. Individually, these individual elements are extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering and outputting. In combination, these additional elements are still extra-solution activity that produce the same result as considered individually. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Finally, Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than the identified abstract ideas. In particular, Applicant asserts that the claims are directed to a specific technological improvement in map matching and navigation systems. Applicant cites to the specification, which states that “prior approaches were unable to reliably distinguish mismatched probe points from outliers at intersections and that the claimed approach provides an improvement in map matching accuracy”. The MPEP provides that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See MPEP 2106.05(a) at paragraph 6. Applicant’s asserted improvement, i.e., improved map matching, is provided by the steps of processing probe points, matching the probe point to a road link, determining a link heading of the road link, computing a magnitude of an h-value metric, determining a sign of the h-value metric, providing the h-value metric and the sign as an output, determining that the probe point is mismatched, filtering the mismatched probe point, and performing map matching of the filtered probe data. All of these limitations, which are the steps taken to determine the h-value metric and perform the map matching, have been identified as abstract ideas. In short, Applicant’s asserted improvement is found in the abstract idea itself. Receiving the probe data and outputting alerts via the user interface are merely extra-solution activity. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims do not improve technology and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on all of the above, the previous rejections under § 101 are maintained.
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, 2, 4-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) 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 (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. With respect to mental processes, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
In the instant application, independent claim 1 recites “processing, in real-time, at least one probe point of probe data collected from the probe device to determine a probe heading, wherein the probe heading indicates a direction of travel of the probe device, and wherein determining the probe heading comprises computing the heading from the time-series location and motion data of the probe device”, “matching the at least one probe point of the probe data to a road link, wherein the road link comprises a map road link stored in digital map data of a geographic database as a road link data record including one or more shape points positioned along the map road link to delineate a plurality of link segments of the map road link; and wherein matching the at least one probe point of the probe data to the road link comprises matching the at least one probe point to a respective link segment of the plurality of link segments based on a location of the at least one probe point”, “determining a link heading of the road link, wherein the link heading indicates a direction along which the road link is oriented, wherein determining the link heading comprises determining a heading of the respective link segment to which the at least one probe point is matched”, “computing a magnitude of an h-value metric based on a difference between the probe heading and the link heading”, “determining a sign of the h-value metric based on a position of the probe heading relative to the link heading, wherein the sign is either a negative sign or a positive sign”, “providing the h-value metric comprising a combination of the magnitude and the sign as an output”, “determining that the at least one probe point is a mismatched probe point based on comparing the h-value metric and the sign to a value range threshold, wherein the mismatched probe point indicates that the at least one probe point has been matched to the road link but should be matched to another road link instead, and wherein the determining distinguishes the mismatched probe point, whose heading is aligned with the another road link, from an outlier probe point whose probe heading is outside of a heading threshold for the road link, wherein the distinguishing is performed to resolve probe point ambiguity at a road intersection comprising a plurality of intersecting road links having different link headings”, “filtering the mismatched probe point from the probe data”, and “performing a map matching of the filtered probe data, wherein the map matching is performed over a plurality of candidate road links and associated link segments stored in the geographic database”, and “modifying a navigation route guidance of the navigation application based on the filtered probe data and the performed map matching”. Independent claims 13 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations. These claim limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, may be performed in the human mind. That the road link data of the matching step comprises a map road link stored in digital map data of a geographic database merely places the matching in the context of being performed by a computer. In addition, processing the probe point to determine the heading by computing the heading from the time-series location and motion data and computing a magnitude of an h-value metric are mathematical processes. Therefore, these limitations are abstract ideas and claims 1, 13 and 17 recite a judicial exception.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) 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.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) 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;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
In the instant application, claims 1, 13, and 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claim 1 recites the additional elements “receiving probe data over a communication network from a probe device, wherein the probe data is collected using one or more location sensors of the probe device, and wherein the one or more location sensors include at least a satellite-based positioning sensor and a motion sensor that generate time-series location and motion data” and “outputting, via a user interface of a navigation application, a lane-closure alert, a change-lane instruction, or a combination thereof based on an output of the map matching”. Claim 13 recites the additional elements “at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code for one or more programs, the at least one memory and program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform”, “receive probe data over a communication network from a probe device, wherein the probe data is collected using one or more location sensors of the probe device, and wherein the one or more location sensors include at least a satellite-based positioning sensor and a motion sensor that generate time-series location and motion data”, and “output, via a user interface of a navigation application, a lane-closure alert, a change-lane instruction, or a combination thereof based on an output of the map matching”, while claim 17 recites the additional element “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, carrying one or more sequences of one or more instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause an apparatus to at least perform the following steps”, “receiving probe data over a communication network from a probe device, wherein the probe data is collected using one or more location sensors of the probe device, and wherein the one or more location sensors include at least a satellite-based positioning sensor and a motion sensor that generate time-series location and motion data”, and “outputting, via a user interface of a navigation application, a lane-closure alert, a change-lane instruction, or a combination thereof based on an output of the map matching”.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Data gathering and data outputting are extra-solution activity. Receiving probe data over a communication network from a probe device is data gathering. Outputting a lane-closure alert and/or a change-lane instruction is outputting data. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. The processor/memory/program of claim 13 and processor/medium/instructions of claim 17 both represent a computer. The computer is configured to perform the above-identified abstract ideas. These additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1, 13, and 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
Finally, even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception renders the claim eligible under §101. Examples that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, 2) simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, 3) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and 4) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examples of generic computing functions that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.
In the instant application, claims 1, 13, and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this particular application, the same analysis above in determining whether the recited additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception is applicable to determine if the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, receiving probe data over a communication network from a probe device is receiving data over a network, which is well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known to the industry. In addition, Giurgiu et al. (US 2018/0121483 A1) discloses a server 102 receiving probe data from a mobile device 114, where the mobile device may include one or more detectors or sensors as a positioning system, e.g., GPS and rotation/velocity/acceleration sensors. See ¶ [0039]. Finally, outputting an alert via a user interface of a navigation application is also well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known to the industry. Kawakami et al. (US 2006/0184321 A1), as but one example, discloses guidance data, such as the merge lane ahead”, output as text data or voice data to the visual display unit 13 or speaker 14.
Based on the above analysis, claims 1, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2, 14, and 18 further define a previously-identified abstract idea, i.e., computing a magnitude of an h-value metric and determining a sign of the h-value metric. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claims 2, 14, and 18 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 4, 16, and 20 recite “wherein the map matching is performed based on the determining that the probe data is the mismatched probe point or the outlier, or a combination thereof”, which may be performed mentally. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claims 4, 16, and 20 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites “processing historical probe data associated with the road link to determine a distribution of historical h-value metrics for the road link”, which may be performed mentally. Claim 5 also recites the additional element “storing the distribution of the historical h-value metrics, the historical h-value metrics, or a combination thereof as a historical artifact data record of a geographic database”. Extra-solution activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Data outputting is extra-solution activity. Storing the distribution is outputting the distribution to a storage device. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Further, using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Storing distribution data in the computer is a generic computing function. The processor/memory/program of claim 13 is recited at a high level and represents a generic computer. Storing the distribution data is performing a generic computing function on a generic computer. Therefore, claim 5 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 further defines a previously-identified abstract idea, i.e., processing historical probe data. Claim 6 does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites “processing real-time probe data associated with the road link to determine a distribution of real-time h-value metrics for the road link”, which may be performed mentally. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites “storing the distribution of the real-time h-value metrics as a real-time artifact data record of a geographic database”. Extra-solution activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Data outputting is extra-solution activity. Storing the distribution is outputting the distribution to a storage device. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Further, using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Storing distribution data in the computer is a generic computing function. The processor/memory/program of claim 13, from which claim 8 depends, is recited at a high level and represents a generic computer. Storing the distribution data is performing a generic computing function on a generic computer. Therefore, claim 8 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 recites “detecting that the distribution of the real-time h-value metrics decomposes into a plurality of clusters”, and “determining a traffic incident on the road link based on the plurality of clusters”, which may be performed mentally. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10-11 further define a previously-identified abstract idea, i.e., detecting that the distribution decomposes and determining a traffic incident, respectively. Claims 10-11 do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claims 10-11 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites “generating a probe heading unit vector based on the probe heading”, “generating a link heading unit vector based on the link heading”, “wherein the magnitude of the h-value is computed using a dot product of the probe heading unit vector and the link heading unit vector”, “wherein the sign of the h-value is determined using a cross product of the probe heading unit vector and the link heading unit vector” which may be performed mentally. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 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 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights