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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 12/09/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is the third action on the merits.
Claims 1 and 21 have been amended. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 22-23 have been newly added. Thus, claims 1, 3-11, 13-18, and 20-23 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of Applicant’s reply, filed 12/09/2025, with respect to the objection of claim 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 2 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11 of Applicant’s reply, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11, 13-18, and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-11, 13-18, and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-16 of Applicant’s reply, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11, 13-18, and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive (except for the arguments pertaining to the limitations discussed below). Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Koponen (US 2022/0034662 A1) (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 below).
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant contends the following (pages 15-16 of Applicant’s reply):
PNG
media_image1.png
441
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
353
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Office respectfully disagrees. In arguments, Applicant refers to an iterative bounded version of the A* algorithm which is less “computationally expensive” because it selectively calculates the costs for a subset of the graph edges as opposed to the traditional version of the A* algorithm where the cost calculation is applied to all the graph edges (Zhang – Par. 48-49). However, regardless of the version, the A* algorithm scores graph edge combinations by assigning costs to each graph edge and finds the “best” combined path based on metrics such as distance and straightness (Zhang – Par. 62, Par. 75, Par. 78-79, Par. 81, Par. 83, Par. 87). Zhang describes a “shortest path problem” where the goal is to find the path that minimizes cost (i.e. “penalty”) (Zhang – Par. 47). When determining the transition to a next path (i.e. “graph edge”), emission probability and transition probability are calculated as node cost and edge cost respectively, where emission probability describes the distance between one GPS point and another GPS point, and transition probability describes the straightness of the route (Zhang – Par. 44-45, Par. 47). The “best” path is the aggregate of graph edges that provide the lowest cost, in other words, minimizing the cost when determining which graph edge to transition to at each GPS node.
Thus, it remains the Office’s stance that the cited prior art anticipates or renders obvious this claimed subject matter.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“navigation device” in claim 1, 3, 4, 22, 23
“navigation or cycling computer interface” in claim 1, 2, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23
“position determining module” in claim 1, 3, 22, 23
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. (Specification: Par. 48-56, Par. 61-62)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 11, 13-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayaratne (US 2011/0172904 A1) in view of Kitchel (US 2015/0160027 A1), Koponen (US 2022/0034662 A1), and Ingram (US 2012/0277962 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dayaratne discloses (Dayaratne does not disclose the strikethrough portions):
A computer-based method for providing analytical features at a navigation device comprising: (Dayaratne - computer-based method for providing analytical features at navigation device -> Par. 4-11, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
displaying a navigation or cycling computer interface at the navigation device; (Dayaratne - computer-based method for providing analytical features at navigation device -> Par. 4-11, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
determining, by a position determining module of the navigation device, a first location of the navigation device associated with a first time during a trip; (Dayaratne - position determining module determines location of navigation device at various times -> Fig. 3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
determining, by the position determining module, a second location of the navigation device associated with a second time during the trip; (Dayaratne - position determining module determines location of navigation device at various times -> Fig. 3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
determining, by the position determining module, a current location of the navigation device during the trip; (Dayaratne - position determining module determines current location -> Fig. 3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
identifying a first inferred path based on the coordinates associated with the first and second locations, the travel direction, and the current location, the first inferred path defining a likely travel path, (Dayaratne - identify first inferred path and likely travel path based on current coordinates and current path -> Fig. 3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
analyzing mapping data associated with the likely travel path to identify at least one instance of a characteristic of interest, (Dayaratne - analyze mapping data associated with likely travel path and present at least one instance of a characteristic of interest to user -> Fig. 2-3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
modifying the navigation or cycling computer interface to incorporate the identified instance of the characteristic of interest, (Dayaratne - analyze mapping data associated with likely travel path and present at least one instance of a characteristic of interest to user -> Fig. 2-3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
displaying a modified presentation of the navigation or cycling computer interface at the navigation device. (Dayaratne - analyze mapping data associated with likely travel path and present at least one instance of a characteristic of interest to user -> Fig. 2-3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
Kitchel teaches generating elevation data for maps, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
associating the first and second locations with coordinates on a first graph edge of a map; (Kitchel - associating first and second location with coordinates on a first graph edge of a map -> Par. 78, Par. 82-90, Par. 98)
determining a travel direction based on a sequence of the first and second locations; (Kitchel - determine travel direction based on sequence of first and second locations -> Par. 78, Par. 82-90, Par. 98)
analyzing mapping data associated with the likely travel path to identify at least one instance of a characteristic of interest, the characteristic of interest corresponding to a change in elevation along the likely travel path; and (Kitchel - analyze map data and present characteristics of interest -> Fig. 13, Par. 32-33, Par. 37; geographic information pertaining to desired route -> Par. 145-149; elevation data -> Fig. 13, Par. 27-28, Par. 36, Par. 49-50, Par. 85-86)
modifying the navigation or cycling computer interface to incorporate the identified instance of the characteristic of interest, wherein the identified instance of the characteristic of interest is presented as any one of (Kitchel - analyze map data and present characteristics of interest -> Fig. 13, Par. 32-33, Par. 37; geographic information pertaining to desired route -> Par. 145-149, Par. 154-155)
displaying a modified presentation of the navigation or cycling computer interface at the navigation device. (Kitchel - analyze map data and present characteristics of interest -> Fig. 13, Par. 32-33, Par. 37; geographic information pertaining to desired route -> Par. 145-149, Par. 154-155)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dayaratne to include analyzing map and location data and presenting characteristics of interest pertaining to geographic information as taught by Kitchel.
One would be motivated to make this modification to assist runners and cyclists by presenting accurate elevation data to a user (Kitchel – Par. 2-4). Furthermore, accurate and relevant geographic information associated with graph edges would allow users to be better prepared for upcoming sections (Kitchel – Par. 28, Par. 116-117). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Dayaratne and Kitchel.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of presenting geographic information through a navigation device and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Dayaratne and Kitchel from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Koponen teaches methods and systems for map matching, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
identifying a first inferred path based on the coordinates associated with the first and second locations, the travel direction, and the current location, the first inferred path defining a likely travel path, and the first inferred path not being based on data associated with prior trips performed by a user of the navigation device; (Koponen - first and second location -> Par. 38, Par. 42; each inferred path based on time sequential coordinates, current travel direction, current location, and map matching -> Par. 46-50, Par. 125-132; most likely path match excludes low score (i.e. high cost) matches -> Par. 186-195)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dayaratne to include map matching methods as taught by Koponen.
One would be motivated to make this modification to improve methods and systems for map matching positional data to reduce uncertainty and inaccuracy in path prediction (Koponen – Par. 6-9). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Dayaratne and Koponen.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of vehicle path prediction and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Dayaratne and Koponen from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Ingram teaches sensing and display of gear ratios, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
modifying the navigation or cycling computer interface to incorporate the identified instance of the characteristic of interest, wherein the identified instance of the characteristic of interest is presented as any one of (Ingram - display current speed and modify information presented to include information about change in elevation without illustrating travel path -> Fig. 7, Par. 51)
displaying a modified presentation of the navigation or cycling computer interface at the navigation device. (Ingram - display current speed and modify information presented to include information about change in elevation without illustrating travel path -> Fig. 7, Par. 51)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dayaratne to include displaying current speed and change in elevation without illustrating the likely travel path as taught by Ingram.
One would be motivated to make this modification to present relevant information to cyclists in real-time to promote efficiency in riding (Ingram – Par. 3-9, Par. 51). Furthermore, displaying the current speed and change in elevation without illustrating the likely travel path would result in less clutter on-screen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Dayaratne and Ingram.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of navigation device display and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Dayaratne and Ingram from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Regarding claim 11, Dayaratne, Kitchel, Koponen, and Ingram teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Dayaratne further discloses:
The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the first inferred path is not based on a defined or predicted destination. (Dayaratne - destination not defined or predicted -> Par. 9-10, claim 1 and 11)
Regarding claim 13, Dayaratne, Kitchel, Koponen, and Ingram teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but Dayaratne does not disclose:
The computer-based method of claim 1 further comprising:
identifying, in the elevation data, at least one ascent along the likely travel path for presentation to the user; and
determining at least one metric associated with the at least one ascent,
wherein modifying the navigation or cycling computer interface comprises presenting the at least one identified ascent to the user with the at least one metric.
Kitchel teaches generating elevation data for maps, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-based method of claim 1 further comprising:
identifying, in the elevation data, at least one ascent along the likely travel path for presentation to the user; and (Kitchel - analyze map data and present characteristics of interest -> Fig. 13, Par. 32-33, Par. 37; geographic information pertaining to desired route -> Par. 145-149; elevation data -> Fig. 13, Par. 27-28, Par. 36, Par. 49-50, Par. 85-86)
determining at least one metric associated with the at least one ascent, (Kitchel - analyze map data and present characteristics of interest -> Fig. 13, Par. 32-33, Par. 37; geographic information pertaining to desired route -> Par. 145-149; elevation data -> Fig. 13, Par. 27-28, Par. 36, Par. 49-50, Par. 85-86)
wherein modifying the navigation or cycling computer interface comprises presenting the at least one identified ascent to the user with the at least one metric. (Kitchel - analyze map data and present characteristics of interest -> Fig. 13, Par. 32-33, Par. 37; geographic information pertaining to desired route -> Par. 145-149; elevation data -> Fig. 13, Par. 27-28, Par. 36, Par. 49-50, Par. 85-86)
Regarding claim 14, Dayaratne, Kitchel, Koponen, and Ingram teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 13, but Dayaratne does not disclose:
The computer-based method of claim 13, wherein the at least one metric is one of length of climb, grade of climb, and elevation of climb.
Kitchel teaches generating elevation data for maps, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-based method of claim 13, wherein the at least one metric is one of length of climb, grade of climb, and elevation of climb. (Kitchel - analyze map data and present characteristics of interest -> Fig. 13, Par. 32-33, Par. 37; geographic information pertaining to desired route -> Par. 145-149; elevation data -> Fig. 13, Par. 27-28, Par. 36, Par. 49-50, Par. 85-86)
Regarding claim 15, Dayaratne, Kitchel, Koponen, and Ingram teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 13, but Dayaratne does not disclose:
The computer-based method of claim 13, wherein the at least one ascent is presented to the user only if the at least one metric associated with the at least one ascent is greater than a threshold associated with the corresponding metric.
Kitchel teaches generating elevation data for maps, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-based method of claim 13, wherein the at least one ascent is presented to the user only if the at least one metric associated with the at least one ascent is greater than a threshold associated with the corresponding metric. (Kitchel - analyze map data and present characteristics of interest -> Fig. 13, Par. 32-33, Par. 37; geographic information pertaining to desired route -> Par. 145-149; elevation data -> Fig. 13, Par. 27-28, Par. 36, Par. 49-50, Par. 85-86; ignore condition if corresponding metric threshold not met -> Par. 124)
Regarding claim 16, Dayaratne, Kitchel, Koponen, and Ingram teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but Dayaratne does not disclose:
The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises identifying, based on the coordinates associated with the first and second locations, the travel direction, and the current location, at least one secondary potential travel path, analyzing mapping data associated with the at least one secondary potential travel path to identify at least one instance of the characteristic of interest associated with the at least one secondary potential travel path, and further modifying the navigation or cycling computer interface to present the at least one secondary potential travel path and the at least one instance associated with the at least one secondary potential travel path to the user with the at least one instance associated with the likely travel path.
Kitchel teaches generating elevation data for maps, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises identifying, based on the coordinates associated with the first and second locations, the travel direction, and the current location, at least one secondary potential travel path, analyzing mapping data associated with the at least one secondary potential travel path to identify at least one instance of the characteristic of interest associated with the at least one secondary potential travel path, and further modifying the navigation or cycling computer interface to present the at least one secondary potential travel path and the at least one instance associated with the at least one secondary potential travel path to the user with the at least one instance associated with the likely travel path. (Kitchel - analyze map data and present characteristics of interest -> Fig. 13, Par. 32-33, Par. 37; geographic information pertaining to desired route -> Par. 145-149; at least one instance of the characteristic of interest shown on secondary potential travel path -> Fig. 11, Par. 145-146)
Regarding claim 17, Dayaratne, Kitchel, Koponen, and Ingram teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 16, but Dayaratne does not disclose:
The computer-based method of claim 16, wherein the method initially identifies the likely travel path and the at least one secondary potential travel path prior to analyzing mapping data associated with each of the likely travel path and the secondary potential travel path, analyzes mapping data associated with each of the likely travel path and the at least one secondary potential travel path to identify at least one instance associated with each travel path, and ranks the likely travel path and the at least one secondary potential travel path based on a metric associated with the characteristic of interest, and wherein the at least one secondary potential travel path is redefined as the likely travel path and the first inferred path is redefined as a secondary potential travel path based on the metric.
Kitchel teaches generating elevation data for maps, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-based method of claim 16, wherein the method initially identifies the likely travel path and the at least one secondary potential travel path prior to analyzing mapping data associated with each of the likely travel path and the secondary potential travel path, analyzes mapping data associated with each of the likely travel path and the at least one secondary potential travel path to identify at least one instance associated with each travel path, and ranks the likely travel path and the at least one secondary potential travel path based on a metric associated with the characteristic of interest, and wherein the at least one secondary potential travel path is redefined as the likely travel path and the first inferred path is redefined as a secondary potential travel path based on the metric. (Kitchel - analyze map data and present characteristics of interest -> Fig. 13, Par. 32-33, Par. 37; geographic information pertaining to desired route -> Par. 145-149; at least one instance of the characteristic of interest shown on secondary potential travel path -> Fig. 11, Par. 145-146; rank of potential travel paths -> Par. 123-124)
Regarding claim 18, Dayaratne, Kitchel, Koponen, and Ingram teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 16, but Dayaratne does not disclose:
The computer-based method of claim 16, wherein, upon modifying the navigation or cycling computer interface, the likely travel path and the at least one secondary potential travel path are presented to the user on a single map, and wherein an indication of each travel path has a characteristic associated with the characteristic of interest.
Kitchel teaches generating elevation data for maps, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-based method of claim 16, wherein, upon modifying the navigation or cycling computer interface, the likely travel path and the at least one secondary potential travel path are presented to the user on a single map, and wherein an indication of each travel path has a characteristic associated with the characteristic of interest. (Kitchel - analyze map data and present characteristics of interest -> Fig. 13, Par. 32-33, Par. 37; geographic information pertaining to desired route -> Par. 145-149; at least one instance of the characteristic of interest shown on secondary potential travel path -> Fig. 11, Par. 145-146)
Regarding claim 20, Dayaratne, Kitchel, Koponen, and Ingram teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Dayaratne further discloses:
The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises retrieving user preference information, and wherein the identification of the first inferred path is further based on the user preference information. (Dayaratne - user preferences used to identify inferred path -> Par. 18, Par. 30-33)
Regarding claim 21, Dayaratne, Kitchel, Koponen, and Ingram teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but Dayaratne does not disclose:
The computer-based method of claim 1 wherein the navigation or cycling computer interface displays current speed and wherein the modifying of the navigation or cycling computer interface comprises presenting the identified instance of the characteristic of interest in the overlay, the overlay including information about the change in elevation without illustrating the likely travel path.
Ingram teaches sensing and display of gear ratios, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-based method of claim 1 wherein the navigation or cycling computer interface displays current speed and wherein the modifying of the navigation or cycling computer interface comprises presenting the identified instance of the characteristic of interest in the overlay, the overlay including information about the change in elevation without illustrating the likely travel path. (Ingram - display current speed and modify information presented to include information about change in elevation without illustrating travel path -> Fig. 7, Par. 51)
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayaratne in view of Kitchel, Koponen, Ingram, and Kitchel (US 2017/0074988 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Kitchel 2].
Regarding claim 3, Dayaratne, Kitchel, Koponen, and Ingram teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Dayaratne further discloses (Dayaratne does not disclose the strikethrough portions):
defining the determined current location as a third location of the navigation device associated with a third time; (Dayaratne - position determining module determines location of navigation device at various times -> Fig. 3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33; position determining module determines current location -> Fig. 3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
Kitchel teaches generating elevation data for maps, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
associating the third location with coordinates on the first graph edge of the map; (Kitchel - associating first and second location with coordinates on a first graph edge of a map -> Par. 78, Par. 82-90, Par. 98)
Kitchel 2 teaches generating trail network maps, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
determining a travel direction based on a sequence of the first, second, and third locations; (Kitchel 2 - determining travel direction based on sequence of previously collected GPS points -> Par. 85, Par. 98; Par. 107, Par. 114-119)
determining, by the position determining module, an updated current location of the navigation device, (Kitchel 2 - updated current location/current network point -> Par. 85, Par. 98; Par. 107, Par. 114-119)
identifying a second inferred path based on the first, second, and third locations, the travel direction, and the updated current location, and (Kitchel 2 - updated current location/current network point -> Par. 85, Par. 98; identifying second inferred path if current network point outside range/not on original likely travel path -> Par. 107, Par. 114-119)
redefining the likely travel path if the second inferred path defines a likely travel path different than the first inferred path. (Kitchel 2 - updated current location/current network point -> Par. 85, Par. 98; identifying second inferred path if current network point outside range/not on original likely travel path -> Par. 107, Par. 114-119)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dayaratne to include using updated mapping information to redefine a likely travel path as taught by Kitchel 2.
One would be motivated to make this modification to maintain accurate automate mapping on trails that are prone to change over time (e.g. dirt trails) (Kitchel 2 – Par. 2). Furthermore, updating mapping information would accommodate for season, weather, surface conditions, and wear (Kitchel 2 – Par. 28). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Dayaratne and Kitchel 2.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of presenting geographic information through a navigation device and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Dayaratne and Kitchel 2 from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Regarding claim 4, Dayaratne, Kitchel, Koponen, Ingram, and Kitchel 2 teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 3, but Dayaratne does not disclose:
The computer-based method of claim 3 wherein the second inferred path is identified only upon determining that the updated current location of the navigation device is not on the likely travel path.
Kitchel 2 teaches generating trail network maps, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-based method of claim 3 wherein the second inferred path is identified only upon determining that the updated current location of the navigation device is not on the likely travel path. (Kitchel 2 - updated current location/current network point -> Par. 85, Par. 98; identifying second inferred path if current network point outside range/not on original likely travel path -> Par. 107, Par. 114-119)
Claims 5-7, 10, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayaratne in view of Kitchel, Koponen, Ingram, and Zhang (US 2018/0245934 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Dayaratne, Kitchel, Koponen, and Ingram teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but Dayaratne does not disclose:
The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the first inferred path is further based on transition costing logic defining costs of transitioning from the first graph edge to a second graph edge with a high maneuver penalty.
Zhang teaches identifying a map matched trip from received geographic position information, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the first inferred path is further based on transition costing logic defining costs of transitioning from the first graph edge to a second graph edge with a high maneuver penalty. (Zhang - coordinates of current location and past locations at various time stamps -> Par. 21-29, Par. 36-40; identify various possible paths based on current location and past locations/current path -> Par. 33-36; associating coordinate locations at respective timestamps with graph edge of a map -> Par. 44-48, Par. 73; transition costing logic reducing high maneuver actions/penalties -> Fig. 3, Par. 47-49, Par. 60-66, Par. 73-79, Par. 80-87)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dayaratne to include utilizing transition costing logic to define costs of transitioning between graph edges as taught by Zhang.
One would be motivated to make this modification to promote an efficient transition costing logic that is not as computationally expensive (Zhang – Par. 46-48, Par. 54). Furthermore, this modification would result in a faster, accurate real-time path routing method. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Dayaratne and Zhang.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of real-time map analysis and routing, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Dayaratne and Zhang from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Regarding claim 6, Dayaratne, Kitchel, Koponen, Ingram, and Zhang teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 5, but Dayaratne does not disclose:
The computer-based method of claim 5, wherein the first inferred path is assumed to proceed substantially straight on consecutive graph edges unless an obstruction increases a cost associated with proceeding substantially straight.
Zhang teaches identifying a map matched trip from received geographic position information, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-based method of claim 5, wherein the first inferred path is assumed to proceed substantially straight on consecutive graph edges unless an obstruction increases a cost associated with proceeding substantially straight. (Zhang - coordinates of current location and past locations at various time stamps -> Par. 21-29, Par. 36-40; identify various possible paths based on current location and past locations/current path -> Par. 33-36; associating coordinate locations at respective timestamps with graph edge of a map -> Par. 44-48, Par. 73; transition costing logic reducing high maneuver actions/penalties -> Fig. 3, Par. 47-49, Par. 60-66, Par. 73-79, Par. 80-87; straightness described by transition probability/cost and straightness assumed based on road network -> Par. 44-46)
Regarding claim 7, Dayaratne, Kitchel, Koponen, Ingram, and Zhang teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 6, but Dayaratne does not disclose:
The computer-based method of claim 6 wherein each transition between graph edges is assigned a cost, and wherein a cost of the transition to the second graph edge is partially based on a road classification of the second graph edge.
Zhang teaches identifying a map matched trip from received geographic position information, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-based method of claim 6 wherein each transition between graph edges is assigned a cost, and wherein a cost of the transition to the second graph edge is partially based on a road classification of the second graph edge. (Zhang - coordinates of current location and past locations at various time stamps -> Par. 21-29, Par. 36-40; identify various possible paths based on current location and past locations/current path -> Par. 33-36; associating coordinate locations at respective timestamps with graph edge of a map -> Par. 44-48, Par. 73; transition costing logic reducing high maneuver actions/penalties -> Fig. 3, Par. 47-49, Par. 60-66, Par. 73-79, Par. 80-87; road classification information included in vehicle map database -> Par. 32, Par. 46-49)
Regarding claim 10, Dayaratne, Kitchel, Koponen, Ingram, and Zhang teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 5, but Dayaratne does not disclose:
The computer-based method of claim 5, wherein any potential transition from the first graph edge to a potential second graph edge is assigned a cost and wherein a selection of the second graph edge for inclusion in the inferred path is based partially on whether the second graph edge has a street name related to a street name of the first graph edge.
Zhang teaches identifying a map matched trip from received geographic position information, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-based method of claim 5, wherein any potential transition from the first graph edge to a potential second graph edge is assigned a cost and wherein a selection of the second graph edge for inclusion in the inferred path is based partially on whether the second graph edge has a street name related to a street name of the first graph edge. (Zhang - coordinates of current location and past locations at various time stamps -> Par. 21-29, Par. 36-40; identify various possible paths based on current location and past locations/current path -> Par. 33-36; associating coordinate locations at respective timestamps with graph edge of a map -> Par. 44-48, Par. 73; transition costing logic reducing high maneuver actions/penalties -> Fig. 3, Par. 47-49, Par. 60-66, Par. 73-79, Par. 80-87; road classification information included in vehicle map database -> Par. 32, Par. 46-49; street name may be input as part of trip request to be included in chosen graph edge -> Par. 26)
Regarding claim 22, Dayaratne discloses (Dayaratne does not disclose the strikethrough portions):
A computer-based method for providing analytical features at a navigation device comprising: (Dayaratne - computer-based method for providing analytical features at navigation device -> Par. 4-11, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
displaying a navigation or cycling computer interface at the navigation device; (Dayaratne - computer-based method for providing analytical features at navigation device -> Par. 4-11, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
determining, by a position determining module of the navigation device, a first location of the navigation device associated with a first time during a trip; (Dayaratne - position determining module determines location of navigation device at various times -> Fig. 3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
determining, by the position determining module, a second location of the navigation device associated with a second time during the trip; (Dayaratne - position determining module determines location of navigation device at various times -> Fig. 3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
determining, by the position determining module, a current location of the navigation device during the trip; (Dayaratne - position determining module determines current location -> Fig. 3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
identifying a first inferred path defining a likely travel path based on the coordinates associated with the first and second locations, the travel direction, the current location, (Dayaratne - identify first inferred path and likely travel path based on current coordinates and current path -> Fig. 3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
analyzing mapping data associated with the likely travel path to identify at least one instance of a characteristic of interest, (Dayaratne - analyze mapping data associated with likely travel path and present at least one instance of a characteristic of interest to user -> Fig. 2-3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
modifying the navigation or cycling computer interface to incorporate the identified instance of the characteristic of interest, (Dayaratne - analyze mapping data associated with likely travel path and present at least one instance of a characteristic of interest to user -> Fig. 2-3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
displaying a modified presentation of the navigation or cycling computer interface at the navigation device. (Dayaratne - analyze mapping data associated with likely travel path and present at least one instance of a characteristic of interest to user -> Fig. 2-3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
Kitchel teaches generating elevation data for maps, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
associating the first and second locations with coordinates on a first graph edge of a map; (Kitchel - associating first and second location with coordinates on a first graph edge of a map -> Par. 78, Par. 82-90, Par. 98)
determining a travel direction based on a sequence of the first and second locations; (Kitchel - determine travel direction based on sequence of first and second locations -> Par. 78, Par. 82-90, Par. 98)
analyzing mapping data associated with the likely travel path to identify at least one instance of a characteristic of interest, the characteristic of interest corresponding to a change in elevation along the likely travel path; and (Kitchel - analyze map data and present characteristics of interest -> Fig. 13, Par. 32-33, Par. 37; geographic information pertaining to desired route -> Par. 145-149; elevation data -> Fig. 13, Par. 27-28, Par. 36, Par. 49-50, Par. 85-86)
modifying the navigation or cycling computer interface to incorporate the identified instance of the characteristic of interest, (Kitchel - analyze map data and present characteristics of interest -> Fig. 13, Par. 32-33, Par. 37; geographic information pertaining to desired route -> Par. 145-149, Par. 154-155)
displaying a modified presentation of the navigation or cycling computer interface at the navigation device. (Kitchel - analyze map data and present characteristics of interest -> Fig. 13, Par. 32-33, Par. 37; geographic information pertaining to desired route -> Par. 145-149, Par. 154-155)
Koponen teaches methods and systems for map matching, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
identifying a first inferred path defining a likely travel path based on the coordinates associated with the first and second locations, the travel direction, the current location, (Koponen - first and second location -> Par. 38, Par. 42; each inferred path based on time sequential coordinates, current travel direction, current location, and map matching -> Par. 46-50, Par. 125-132; most likely path match excludes low score (i.e. high cost) matches -> Par. 186-195)
Ingram teaches sensing and display of gear ratios, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
modifying the navigation or cycling computer interface to incorporate the identified instance of the characteristic of interest, wherein the identified instance of the characteristic of interest is presented as an overlay that was not previously presented on the navigation or cycling computer interface; and (Ingram - display current speed and modify information presented to include information about change in elevation without illustrating travel path -> Fig. 7, Par. 51)
displaying a modified presentation of the navigation or cycling computer interface at the navigation device. (Ingram - display current speed and modify information presented to include information about change in elevation without illustrating travel path -> Fig. 7, Par. 51)
Zhang teaches identifying a map matched trip from received geographic position information, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
identifying a first inferred path defining a likely travel path based on the coordinates associated with the first and second locations, the travel direction, the current location, and transition costing logic defining costs of transitioning from the first graph edge to a second graph edge, wherein each transition between graph edges is assigned a cost, (Zhang - coordinates of current location and past locations at various time stamps -> Par. 21-29, Par. 36-40; identify various possible paths based on current location and past locations/current path -> Par. 33-36; associating coordinate locations at respective timestamps with graph edge of a map -> Par. 44-48, Par. 73; transition costing logic reducing high maneuver actions/penalties -> Fig. 3, Par. 47-49, Par. 60-66, Par. 73-79, Par. 80-87)
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayaratne in view of Kitchel, Koponen, Ingram, Zhang, and Ho (US 2019/0120640 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Dayaratne, Kitchel, Koponen, Ingram, and Zhang teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 5, but Dayaratne does not disclose:
The computer-based method of claim 5, wherein the first inferred path is identified iteratively such that a first portion of the likely travel path is first defined and a continuation of the first inferred path is further based on the inclusion of locations along a graph edge included along the likely travel path.
Ho teaches autonomous vehicle routing, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-based method of claim 5, wherein the first inferred path is identified iteratively such that a first portion of the likely travel path is first defined and a continuation of the first inferred path is further based on the inclusion of locations along a graph edge included along the likely travel path. (Ho - inclusion of identified locations along graph edges associated with cost model parameters -> Par. 114-118, Par. 234, Par. 246-254, Par. 311-316, Par. 321-333)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dayaratne to include iteratively identifying a likely travel path by identifying specific locations along graph edges and analyzing turn parameters as taught by Ho.
One would be motivated to make this modification to allow for a more efficient routing network (Ho – Par. 3-4). Furthermore, this modification would improve the safety and accuracy of route planning (Ho – Par. 95-101, Par. 155). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Dayaratne and Ho.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of route planning and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Dayaratne and Ho from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Regarding claim 9, Dayaratne, Kitchel, Koponen, Ingram, Zhang, and Ho teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 8, but Dayaratne does not disclose:
The computer-based method of claim 8, wherein the iterative method includes locations along the graph edge in the first inferred path only upon confirming that the inferred path has not looped back on itself, and upon confirming that either a street name for a location to be included is related to a street name of a previous graph edge or the location to be included does not require a turn.
Ho teaches autonomous vehicle routing, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The computer-based method of claim 8, wherein the iterative method includes locations along the graph edge in the first inferred path only upon confirming that the inferred path has not looped back on itself, and upon confirming that either a street name for a location to be included is related to a street name of a previous graph edge or the location to be included does not require a turn. (Ho - inclusion of identified locations along graph edges associated with cost model parameters -> Par. 114-118, Par. 234, Par. 246-254, Par. 311-316, Par. 321-333; turn parameters assigned cost values -> Par. 87-90, Par. 121-129, Par. 200, Par. 245)
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayaratne in view of Kitchel, Koponen, and Zhang.
Regarding claim 23, Dayaratne discloses (Dayaratne does not disclose the strikethrough portions):
A computer-based method for providing analytical features at a navigation device comprising: (Dayaratne - computer-based method for providing analytical features at navigation device -> Par. 4-11, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
displaying a navigation or cycling computer interface at the navigation device; (Dayaratne - computer-based method for providing analytical features at navigation device -> Par. 4-11, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
determining, by a position determining module of the navigation device, a first location of the navigation device associated with a first time during a trip; (Dayaratne - position determining module determines location of navigation device at various times -> Fig. 3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
determining, by the position determining module, a second location of the navigation device associated with a second time during the trip; (Dayaratne - position determining module determines location of navigation device at various times -> Fig. 3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
determining, by the position determining module, a current location of the navigation device during the trip; (Dayaratne - position determining module determines current location -> Fig. 3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
identifying a first inferred path defining a likely travel path based on the coordinates associated with the first and second locations, the travel direction, the current location, (Dayaratne - identify first inferred path and likely travel path based on current coordinates and current path -> Fig. 3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
analyzing mapping data associated with the likely travel path to identify at least one instance of a characteristic of interest, (Dayaratne - analyze mapping data associated with likely travel path and present at least one instance of a characteristic of interest to user -> Fig. 2-3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
modifying the navigation or cycling computer interface to incorporate the identified instance of the characteristic of interest, (Dayaratne - analyze mapping data associated with likely travel path and present at least one instance of a characteristic of interest to user -> Fig. 2-3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
displaying a modified presentation of the navigation or cycling computer interface at the navigation device. (Dayaratne - analyze mapping data associated with likely travel path and present at least one instance of a characteristic of interest to user -> Fig. 2-3, Par. 16-19, Par. 26-33)
Kitchel teaches generating elevation data for maps, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
associating the first and second locations with coordinates on a first graph edge of a map; (Kitchel - associating first and second location with coordinates on a first graph edge of a map -> Par. 78, Par. 82-90, Par. 98)
determining a travel direction based on a sequence of the first and second locations; (Kitchel - determine travel direction based on sequence of first and second locations -> Par. 78, Par. 82-90, Par. 98)
analyzing mapping data associated with the likely travel path to identify at least one instance of a characteristic of interest, the characteristic of interest corresponding to a change in elevation along the likely travel path; and (Kitchel - analyze map data and present characteristics of interest -> Fig. 13, Par. 32-33, Par. 37; geographic information pertaining to desired route -> Par. 145-149; elevation data -> Fig. 13, Par. 27-28, Par. 36, Par. 49-50, Par. 85-86)
modifying the navigation or cycling computer interface to incorporate the identified instance of the characteristic of interest, wherein the identified instance of the characteristic of interest is integrated into the representation of the likely travel path as an aesthetic characteristic in the context of the map, and wherein the characteristic of interest was not previously presented on the navigation or cycling computer interface and the representation of the likely travel path is distinguishable from the current path; and (Kitchel - analyze map data and present characteristics of interest -> Fig. 13, Par. 32-33, Par. 37; geographic information pertaining to desired route -> Par. 145-149, Par. 154-155)
displaying a modified presentation of the navigation or cycling computer interface at the navigation device. (Kitchel - analyze map data and present characteristics of interest -> Fig. 13, Par. 32-33, Par. 37; geographic information pertaining to desired route -> Par. 145-149, Par. 154-155)
Koponen teaches methods and systems for map matching, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
identifying a first inferred path defining a likely travel path based on the coordinates associated with the first and second locations, the travel direction, the current location, (Koponen - first and second location -> Par. 38, Par. 42; each inferred path based on time sequential coordinates, current travel direction, current location, and map matching -> Par. 46-50, Par. 125-132; most likely path match excludes low score (i.e. high cost) matches -> Par. 186-195)
Zhang teaches identifying a map matched trip from received geographic position information, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
identifying a first inferred path defining a likely travel path based on the coordinates associated with the first and second locations, the travel direction, the current location, and transition costing logic defining costs of transitioning from the first graph edge to a second graph edge, wherein each transition between graph edges is assigned a cost, and wherein the first inferred path is selected based on the cost between path edges; (Zhang - coordinates of current location and past locations at various time stamps -> Par. 21-29, Par. 36-40; identify various possible paths based on current location and past locations/current path -> Par. 33-36; associating coordinate locations at respective timestamps with graph edge of a map -> Par. 44-48, Par. 73; transition costing logic reducing high maneuver actions/penalties -> Fig. 3, Par. 47-49, Par. 60-66, Par. 73-79, Par. 80-87)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICAH C CHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-8983. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm ET.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/MICAH CHUEN-HIM CHENG/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669