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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to applicants’ amendments and remarks filed on January 22, 2026. Claims 1 and 11 has been amended. No claims have been newly added/cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
The applicants’ remarks, filed on January 22, 2026, with respect to the previous rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding the statement that the amendments to claims 1/11 go beyond the abstract idea (Remarks, Page 6, “…the claims go beyond a mere abstract idea of utilizing weather conditions data…”), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitation is directed towards assigning road segments based on a distance from a location of the weather conditions data which is a step that may be practically performed in the human mind using observation and judgment (e.g. a person may identify roads closest to a weather event as being associated with the weather event). Accordingly, the claim limitation falls under the mental process grouping of an abstract idea.
Furthermore, regarding the statement that the amendments to claims 1/11 provide the inventive concept (Remarks, Page 6, “…and extends to an improvement into how to tie weather conditions data to road segments in a manner that aligns with ‘the type of data and how they are used’ that falls under inventive concept”), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Even assuming that the amended limitations are not considered to involve the mental process, the amended limitations would be directed towards appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)) of attributing weather information with a given geographic area and would not be considered to qualify as significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the 101 rejection is respectfully maintained.
The applicants’ amendments and remarks, filed on January 22, 2026, with respect to the previous rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered and are persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding the statement that Levinson does not disclose the amended limitation “the weather conditions data to each road segment of the plurality of homogeneous road segments based on a Euclidean distance of a location of the weather conditions data to a location of each road segment” for independent claims 1/11 (Remarks, Page 7), the examiner agrees. Although Levison describes the weather characteristics being associated with a set of roads (Page 43, “The data set contained the data types described in the following subsections; the data were intended to capture characteristics for an entire year on the study section”), Levinson does not explicitly recite that weather conditions are assigned based on a distance from a location associated with the weather data. Therefore, upon further search and consideration of the amended claims, a new ground(s) of 35 U.S.C. 103 has been made for independent claims 1 and 11 in view of newly cited art Sloop et al. (US20110153742A1) as shown further below.
Regarding claims 2-10, and 12-20 (Remarks, Page 8), these claims are ultimately dependent on claims 1 or 11, and stand rejected as described above.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1 and 11, which recite substantially similar subject matter, recite:
A route guidance system for determining a safe route, the route guidance system comprising a processor and memory operable for carrying out a method / A computer-program product comprising a non-transitory computer-usable medium having computer-readable program code embodied therein, the computer-readable program code adapted to be executed to implement a method comprising:
receiving, via the processor, trip information from a user, the trip information comprising an origin and a destination;
identifying, via the processor, route alternatives for routes between the origin and the destination;
for each route alternative, dividing, via the processor, a road network into a plurality of homogeneous road segments;
receiving, via the processor, crash data and weather conditions data from a database, the weather conditions data being classified into adverse weather conditions and clear weather conditions;
assigning, via the processor : the crash data to each road segment of the plurality of homogeneous road segments; and the weather conditions data to each road segment of the plurality of homogeneous road segments based on a Euclidean distance of a location of the weather conditions data to a location of each road segment;
accumulating, via the processor, crash risk for each route of the route alternatives;
determining, via the processor, using the crash data and the weather conditions data which route of the route alternatives has a lowest crash risk; and
displaying, via the processor, the route with the lowest crash risk on a display associated with the route guidance system.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 and 11 are directed toward a machine (route guidance system) and manufacture (non-transitory computer-readable medium), respectively. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 11 are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The recited limitations (represented by bolded font) constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor and memory”, or “computer-readable program code”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “identifying…”, “for each route alternative dividing a road network…”, “assigning…”, “accumulating…”, and “determining…” in the context of these claims may encompass a passenger mentally searching for potential routes between a starting and ending point on a map, observing the road segments that make-up each route (e.g. straight segments versus curved segments), identifying road segments where historical crashes occurred and their proximate weather conditions, calculating a crash risk for each route (e.g. a route containing many intersections may be judged as high risk versus a route with few intersections), and determining which route has the lowest crash risk. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The independent claims recite additional elements (represented by underlined font) that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional limitations of "a processor and memory…” and “…computer-readable program code…” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitations “receiving, via the processor, trip information from a user, the trip information comprising an origin and a destination” and “receiving, via the processor, crash data and weather conditions data from a database, the weather conditions data being classified into adverse weather conditions and clear weather conditions”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. The steps of receiving trip information from a user and weather conditions data are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering information regarding the origin and destination and weather conditions) and amounts to mere data gathering which is considered a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally, in regards to the amended limitation “displaying, via the processor, the route with the lowest crash risk on a display associated with the route guidance system” the step of displaying a determined route amounts to post-solution display which is considered a form of extra-solution activity as well. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) do not add anything that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of "a processor and memory…” and “…computer-readable program code…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the components are anything other than a generic processor, memory and/or program language. The additional limitations “receiving, via the processor, trip information from a user, the trip information comprising an origin and a destination” and “receiving, via the processor, crash data and weather conditions data from a database, the weather conditions data being classified into adverse weather conditions and clear weather conditions are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Moreover, the additional limitation of “displaying, via the processor, the route with the lowest crash risk on a display associated with the route guidance system”, is considered a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) indicate that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent Claims 2‐10 and 12-20, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the corresponding independent claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well‐understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, 12-13, 15, and 17-18 describe the types of data (e.g., real-time traffic, road characteristics, road incidents, etc.) gathered by the route guidance system and do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 14 describe updating the route guidance system and display based on changes in real-time traffic information and do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 6 and 16 describe a tool to calculate road characteristics and is considered as an additional element that will be treated the same as the additional elements above (in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B).
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 further describe how the route with the lowest crash risk is displayed to the user and amounts to post-solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, dependent Claims 2‐10 and 12-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan et al. (US Publication Number US20220128370A1, filed on 10/28/2021; hereinafter Srinivasan) in view of Sloop et al. (US20110153742A1; hereinafter Sloop).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11 (independent), which recite substantially similar subject matter, Srinivasan discloses a route guidance system for determining a safe route (Paragraph 0019, “The present disclosure provides technical solutions for configuring and using a machine-learned safety risk model to predict a corresponding risk of vehicular collision for different candidate routes”) comprising:
a computer-program product comprising a non-transitory computer-usable medium having computer-readable program code embodied therein, the computer-readable program code adapted to be executed to implement a method and a processor and memory operable for carrying out a method (Paragraph 0020, “In some example embodiments, a non-transitory machine-readable storage device can store a set of instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, causes the processor(s) to perform the operations and method steps discussed within the present disclosure”):
receiving, via the processor, trip information from a user, the trip information comprising an origin and a destination (Paragraph 0025, “An origin location and/or a destination location may be a location inputted by the requester 110 or may correspond to the current location of the requester client device 112”);
identifying, via the processor, route alternatives for routes between the origin and the destination (Paragraph 0060, “The selection module 104 is configured to generate a plurality of candidate routes from the starting geographic location 220 to the destination geographic location 230”);
for each route alternative dividing, via the processor, a road network into a plurality of homogeneous road segments (Paragraph 0053, “A road segment is the specific representation of a portion of a road with uniform characteristics; Paragraph 0058, “In some example embodiments, the safety risk model is configured to generate a corresponding safety risk score for each one of a plurality of road segments that form a route”; Examiner notes that a route consisting of a plurality of road segments reasonably implies dividing a road network into a plurality of road segments”);
receiving, via the processor, crash data and [weather data] (Paragraph 0039, “The training module 102 is configured to obtain corresponding accident data and corresponding feature data for each one of a plurality of historical routes”; Paragraph 0052 describes the feature data as including weather conditions);
assigning, via the processor: the crash data to each road segment of the plurality of homogeneous road segments (Paragraph 0058, “The safety risk model is configured to generate a corresponding safety risk score for each one of a plurality of road segments that form a route, such as based on the corresponding segment accident data and the corresponding segment feature data for each road segment”);
accumulating, via the processor, crash risk for each route of the route alternatives (Paragraph 0058, “Safety risk scores for the plurality of road segments of the route may then be used in aggregation to generate a safety risk score for the route, such as by calculating the average (or some other statistical calculation) of the safety risk scores for the road segments of the route to determine the safety risk score for the route”);
determining, via the processor, using the crash data and the [weather data] which route of the route alternatives has a lowest crash risk (Paragraph 0061, “The selection module 104 ranks the candidate routes based on their safety risk score and select the candidate route with the highest safety risk score (e.g., if the safety risk score has an inverse relationship with the likelihood of a vehicular accident) or the lowest safety risk score (e.g., if the safety risk score has a linear relationship with the likelihood of a vehicular accident)”); and
displaying, via the processor, the route with the lowest crash risk on a display associated with the route guidance system (Paragraph 0064, “In some example embodiments, the service module 106 is configured to cause the selected candidate route to be displayed within a user interface on a computing device of a user”; Examiner notes that a computing device of a user for displaying a route is reasonably considered associated with the route guidance system).
However, Srinivasan does not explicitly disclose: receiving [weather conditions data from a database, the weather conditions data being classified into adverse weather conditions and clear weather conditions] and assigning [the weather conditions data to each road segment of the plurality of homogeneous road segments based on a Euclidean distance of a location of the weather conditions data to a location of each road segment].
Nevertheless, Sloop teaches features for assigning characteristics to road sections (see at least Abstract, “A hazard index indicating a level of driving safety is generated for a plurality of road segments”) comprising:
receiving [weather conditions data from a database, the weather conditions data being classified into adverse weather conditions and clear weather conditions] (Paragraph 0031 describes receiving weather conditions data that can be classified into adverse and clear conditions (e.g. hazard index) (“The data communication module 110 receives (202) weather conditions data and physical road attribute data from one or more data sources (e.g., data sources 108a-c). The hazard index generation module 112 generates a hazard index for a plurality of road segments by determining (204) a hazard value for one or more road segments based on the forecast weather data, the weather conditions data as well as the physical road attribute data, and assigning (206) the hazard value to the corresponding road segment)”; Paragraph 0037 describes that weather data can be historical or future data (“Another type of weather condition data element which can be used by the hazard index generation module 112 to determine a hazard value is historical or forecast weather data”));
assigning [the weather conditions data to each road segment of the plurality of homogeneous road segments based on a Euclidean distance of a location of the weather conditions data to a location of each road segment] (Paragraph 0045, “…the hazard index generation module 112 generates a hazard zone by retrieving hazard values associated with road segments in a zone surrounding the current location of a weather event…In determining which road segments to include in the hazard zone, the hazard index generation module 112 identifies road segments within a predefined geographical area extending outward from the weather event. For example, the hazard index generation module 112 identifies all road segments within a five-mile radius from the weather event to include in a hazard zone”; Examiner notes that a radial distance is reasonable indicative of a Euclidean distance / straight line distance from weather event).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Srinivasan invention to expand the features for assigning data to a plurality of road segments (Paragraph 0058) to include assigning weather data based on a Euclidean distance, as taught by Sloop, for the benefit of allowing a determination on roads reasonably affected by a weather event (Sloop, Paragraph 0045).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Srinivasan as currently modified teaches claims 1 and 11. Srinivasan further discloses:
wherein the dividing the road network is based upon at least one of intersection characteristics, road characteristics, road construction, and lighting (Paragraph 0053, “Each street on a map is divided into multiple segments. A road is a linear section of the earth designed for or the result of vehicular movement. A road segment is the specific representation of a portion of a road with uniform characteristics. For example, a segment may be a few meters long or hundreds of meters long based on the type of street (e.g., highway, road, rural area, city). In one example, each segment is represented by a unique identifier. Each segment may also be associated with a geometric feature (e.g., straight line, curve, circle)”; Examiner notes that the road segments are formed based on features such as type of street and/or geometric features, which are directly related to road characteristics).
Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan in view of Sloop and further in view of Froeberg et al. (US Publication Number US20100036599A1; hereinafter Froeberg).
Regarding Claim 5, Srinivasan as currently modified teaches claim 1. While Srinivasan further discloses incorporating feature data that characterizes a road segment (Paragraph 0058, “Generate a corresponding safety risk score for each one of a plurality of road segments that form a route, such as based on the corresponding segment accident data and the corresponding segment feature data for each road segment”), Srinivasan does not explicitly recite that the feature data may include at least one of road curvature, shoulder type and width, median type and width, pavement, traffic disruption, functional classification, number of lanes, and lane width.
Nevertheless, Froeberg teaches a safety-based routing system (Abstract, “Methods and systems for determining a safest transportation route”) comprising:
wherein the assigning crash data includes an assessment of road characteristics including one or more of road curvature, shoulder type and width, median type and width, pavement, traffic disruption, functional classification, number of lanes, and lane width (Paragraph 0066, “One category of physical route attributes 305 affecting the safety level of the route may be geometrical route attributes, e.g., a geometrical characteristic of a physical configuration or arrangement of the route. Geometrical route attributes may include, for example, road or path curvature, number and types of intersections, size, dimensions and other such geometrical characteristics”; Paragraph 0069, “Geometrical route attributes may be calculated or determined using one or more digital map data databases, such as the map data accessed at the block 210 of the method 200”; Examiner notes that route attributes 305 are safety factors that may be applied to a road segment).
Froeberg is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of assessing road characteristics for a safety-based routing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Srinivasan invention to include the calculation and assessment of relevant physical route attributes for each road segment that make-up a route, as taught by Froeberg. Doing so would allow the route guidance system to more accurately determine the safest route as it would enable the system to consider previously unaccounted features that may affect the crash risk of a route (Froeberg, Paragraph 0065, “Physical route attributes 305 may increase a probability of collision or accident on the route, thus influencing the risk value 350 and hence a safety level of the route”).
Regarding Claim 15, Srinivasan as currently modified teaches claim 11. While Srinivasan further discloses that the road segments are formed based on type of street and/or geometric features (Paragraph 0053, “A road segment is the specific representation of a portion of a road with uniform characteristics. For example, a segment may be a few meters long or hundreds of meters long based on the type of street. In one example, each segment is represented by a unique identifier. Each segment may also be associated with a geometric feature”), Srinivasan does not explicitly recite that the type of street and/or geometric features may include road curvature, shoulder type and width, median type and width, pavement, traffic disruption, functional classification, number of lanes, and lane width.
Nevertheless, Froeberg teaches a safety-based routing system (Abstract, “Methods and systems for determining a safest transportation route”) including:
wherein the homogeneous road segments are determined based on road characteristics, including one or more of road curvature, shoulder type and width, median type and width, pavement, traffic disruption, functional classification, number of lanes, and lane width (Paragraph 0052, “Map data may include a type of a road, path, route or route segment, its name or identification, a geometrical and geographical representation of the route or route segment, and other attributes associated with the route or route segment that are commonly included in map data”; Paragraphs 0066-0069, “One category of physical route attributes 305 affecting the safety level of the route may be geometrical route attributes, e.g., a geometrical characteristic of a physical configuration or arrangement of the route. Geometrical route attributes may include, for example, road or path curvature, number and types of intersections, size, dimensions and other such geometrical characteristics…Other geometrical intersection attributes may also influence the chance of accident on a route, including a type of intersection (e.g., big street crossing a small one, small street crossing a big street, etc.), a presence of a blind intersection, a number of lanes in each of the intersecting streets….Physical route attributes 305, however, may not be limited to only geometrical route attributes…An exemplary (but not comprehensive) list may include other route attributes such as…Road composition…Whether or not the road is divided…Shoulder presence and shoulder widths…Geometrical route attributes may be calculated or determined using one or more digital map data databases”).
Froeberg is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of determining road segments based on road characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Srinivasan invention to include the calculation and assessment of additional relevant physical route attributes to determine the road segments that make-up a route, as taught by Froeberg. Doing so would improve the accuracy of the route guidance system as it would allow the system to account for a wider range of different types of road segments that may affect crash risk.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Srinivasan as currently modified teach claims 5 and 15. Froeberg further teaches:
wherein a road curvature analyst tool is used to determine the road characteristics (Paragraph 0069, “Geometrical route attributes may be calculated or determined using one or more digital map data databases, such as the map data accessed at the block 210 of the method 200”; Examiner notes that a computer performing calculations to determine road attributes, such as curvature, based on digital map data effectively serves as a road curvature analyst tool).
Froeberg is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of assessing road characteristics for a safety-based routing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Srinivasan invention to include features that allow the determination of road characteristics, as taught by Froeberg. Doing so would allow the route guidance system to more accurately determine the safest route as it would enable the system to consider previously unaccounted features that may affect the crash risk of a route (Froeberg, Paragraph 0065, “Physical route attributes 305 may increase a probability of collision or accident on the route, thus influencing the risk value 350 and hence a safety level of the route”).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Srinivasan as currently modified teaches claims 1 and 11. While Srinivasan further discloses displaying a selected route on a computing device (Paragraph 0064, “In some example embodiments, the service module 106 is configured to cause the selected candidate route to be displayed within a user interface on a computing device of a user”), Srinivasan does not explicitly recite that the user interface of the computing device corresponds to the display of the route guidance system.
Nevertheless, Froeberg teaches a safety-based routing system (Abstract, “Methods and systems for determining a safest transportation route”) comprising:
wherein the display is a part of the route guidance system (Paragraph 0047, “Another embodiment of the route evaluation system 100 may be a personal navigation device (PND), such as the example PND 170 illustrated in FIG. 1D. Generally, the PND 170 may be a computing entity primarily dedicated to personal navigation or routing. The PND 170 may be built into a vehicle or other receiving entity, or the PND 170 may be portable. The PND 170 may include a processor 172, a display or user interface 175, and a memory 178 including a database 180 and computer-executable instructions for performing safest route determination 182. Some or all of the safest route calculations may be performed by the software programs 182 using the local database 180, and the resulting safest route may be displayed on the user interface 175”).
Froeberg is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of displaying a route on a safety-based route routing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Srinivasan invention to provide functionality to display the route with the lowest crash risk. Doing so would improve convenience for a user by allowing the safest route to be viewed on a display embedded into the route guidance system, rather than on a separate device.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Srinivasan as currently modified teaches claims 1 and 11. While Srinivasan further discloses displaying a selected route on a computing device (Paragraph 0064, “In some example embodiments, the service module 106 is configured to cause the selected candidate route to be displayed within a user interface on a computing device of a user”), Srinivasan does not explicitly recite that the user interface of the computing device corresponds to the display of the route guidance system.
Nevertheless, Froeberg teaches a safety-based routing system (Abstract, “Methods and systems for determining a safest transportation route”) comprising:
wherein the display is a part of a vehicle in which the route guidance system is installed (Paragraph 0047, “Another embodiment of the route evaluation system 100 may be a personal navigation device (PND), such as the example PND 170 illustrated in FIG. 1D. Generally, the PND 170 may be a computing entity primarily dedicated to personal navigation or routing. The PND 170 may be built into a vehicle or other receiving entity, or the PND 170 may be portable. The PND 170 may include a processor 172, a display or user interface 175, and a memory 178 including a database 180 and computer-executable instructions for performing safest route determination 182. Some or all of the safest route calculations may be performed by the software programs 182 using the local database 180, and the resulting safest route may be displayed on the user interface 175”).
Froeberg is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of displaying a route on a safety-based route guidance system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Srinivasan invention to provide functionality to display the route with the lowest crash risk. Doing so would improve convenience for a user by allowing the safest route to be viewed on a display embedded into a vehicle, rather than a display on a separate device.
Claims 2-4, 7, 12-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan in view of Sloop and further in view of Fields et al. (US Patent Number US10490078B1; hereinafter Fields).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Srinivasan as currently modified teaches claim 1 and 11. While Srinivasan further discloses incorporating traffic or congestion data (Paragraph 0052, “In some example embodiments, the feature data also includes…traffic or congestion data for the trip”), Srinivasan does not explicitly recite that the traffic data is in real-time.
Nevertheless, Fields teaches a safety-based routing system (Abstract, “The systems and approaches may further determine a risk index based on the historical route data and the near real-time route data, and present at least one travel route for the vehicle based on the calculated risk index”) comprising:
wherein the accumulating crash risk comprises analyzing real-time traffic data (Column 16, Lines 45-55, “FIG. 6 illustrates exemplary near real-time route data 253 for any number of routes according to one embodiment. The near real-time route data 253 is a collection of data from various sources having up-to-date information of events on desired routes. The near real-time route data 253 may include current traffic data 602 for a particular route, route congestion data 604 for the particular route, incident data 606, roadway conditions 608, road engineering data 610, and the likes. It is understood that any number of additional data sources may be used to provide updates to the near real-time route data 253”).
Fields is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of incorporating real-time traffic data to a safety-based routing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Srinivasan invention to include receiving real-time route data, as taught by Fields. Doing so would allow the route guidance system to more accurately determine the crash risk of a route by taking into account current conditions, such as an unexpectedly high amount of traffic congestion, that may affect the crash risk of a route (Fields, Column 11, Lines 34-37, “Examples of potential events that may impact route risk include accidents, increased or decreased traffic, and road engineering occurrences (e.g., construction, lane blockages, and the like) on the route”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Srinivasan as currently modified teaches claims 2 and 12. Fields further teaches:
wherein the real-time traffic data includes one or more of traffic flow, traffic speed, precipitation, wind speed, visibility, time of day, lighting, and presence of road construction (Column 16, Lines 45-55, “FIG. 6 illustrates exemplary near real-time route data 253 for any number of routes according to one embodiment. The near real-time route data 253 is a collection of data from various sources having up-to-date information of events on desired routes. The near real-time route data 253 may include current traffic data 602 for a particular route, route congestion data 604 for the particular route, incident data 606, roadway conditions 608, road engineering data 610, and the likes…The road engineering data 610 may include information regarding locations experiencing construction or similar conditions”).
Fields is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of incorporating real-time traffic data to a safety-based routing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Srinivasan invention to include receiving real-time route data that includes information such as presence of construction, as taught by Fields. Doing so would allow the route guidance system to more accurately determine the crash risk of a route by taking into account current conditions, such as an unexpectedly high amount of traffic congestion, that may affect the crash risk of a route (Fields, Column 11, Lines 34-37, “Examples of potential events that may impact route risk include accidents, increased or decreased traffic, and road engineering occurrences (e.g., construction, lane blockages, and the like) on the route”).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Srinivasan as currently modified teaches claims 1 and 11. However, Srinivasan does not explicitly disclose updating the route guidance system based on real-time traffic information.
Nevertheless, Fields teaches a safety-based routing system (Abstract, “The systems and approaches may further determine a risk index based on the historical route data and the near real-time route data, and present at least one travel route for the vehicle based on the calculated risk index”) comprising:
wherein the displaying is iterative based on changes in real-time traffic information (Column 16, Lines 45-55, “The near real-time route data 253 may include current traffic data 602 for a particular route, route congestion data 604 for the particular route, incident data 606, roadway conditions 608, road engineering data 610, and the likes”; Column 19, Lines 1-17, “This near real-time route data 253 is periodically updated, for example, at intervals of between every five seconds and every ten minutes. In other examples, the near real-time route data 253 may be updated as events occur, meaning the new data is pushed to the server 140 as events occur. In some examples, the new data is provided as the notification data 239. The system 100 may cause the display 202 to indicate the presence of a new event, and may include an indication of increased risk and/or travel time depending on the type and/or severity of the event. The system may then calculate an updated risk index for the present route using the most up-to-date near real-time route data 253, and may calculate updated risk indices for alternate routes using any updated near real-time route data 253 for those particular routes”).
Fields is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of incorporating real-time traffic data into a safety-based routing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Srinivasan invention to include an analysis of real-time traffic data in order to update the risk of a route, as taught by Fields. Doing so would allow the route guidance system to propose a safer alternative route if a previously selected route has a sudden increase in risk due to current conditions (Fields, Column 3, Lines 8-19, “Further, the systems and methods may present updated risk information for the selected desired travel route, and may further present alternative routes based on the updated calculated risk index that avoids traversing the area”).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Srinivasan as currently modified teaches claims 1 and 11. While Srinivasan further discloses that feature data may include traffic, congestion or weather data (Paragraph 0052, “In some example embodiments, the feature data also includes contextual features for each trip. Examples of such contextual features may include, but are not limited to, a time of day at which the trip occurs, a day of the week at which the trip occurs, weather conditions during the trip, and traffic or congestion data for the trip”), Srinivasan does not explicitly recite that the feature data may include at least one of road incidents, crashes and flooding.
Nevertheless, Fields teaches a safety-based routing system (Abstract, “The systems and approaches may further determine a risk index based on the historical route data and the near real-time route data, and present at least one travel route for the vehicle based on the calculated risk index”) comprising:
wherein identifying route alternatives includes monitoring one or more of road incidents, crashes, and flooding (Column 16, Lines 45-55, “FIG. 6 illustrates exemplary near real-time route data 253 for any number of routes according to one embodiment. The near real-time route data 253 is a collection of data from various sources having up-to-date information of events on desired routes. The near real-time route data 253 may include current traffic data 602 for a particular route, route congestion data 604 for the particular route, incident data 606, roadway conditions 608, road engineering data 610, and the likes… The incident data 606 may include near real-time information describing current incidents (e.g., accidents, slowdowns, and the likes) along the desired route”).
Fields is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of monitoring road incidents and/or crashes in a safety-based routing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified the Srinivasan invention to include features that monitor incident data for a route, as taught by Fields. Doing so would allow the route guidance system to monitor current conditions that may affect crash risk, such as a sudden high number of recent incidents on a route (Fields, Column 11, Lines 34-37, “Examples of potential events that may impact route risk include accidents, increased or decreased traffic, and road engineering occurrences (e.g., construction, lane blockages, and the like) on the route”).
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 EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/EISEN YIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights