DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment/response of 06 February 2026.
Claims 6-7 have been canceled.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argued:
Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 1-7 are directed to statutory subject matter, despite the Office Action's assertion, because Claim 1 recite a system which incorporates and requires multiple hardware components in association with non-transitory computer readable software to generate dedicated routes for runners, which places the claimed invention squarely within the categories defined by § 101. Furthermore, the subject matter is not directed to a judicial exception. Additionally, even if, arguendo, the claims were directed to an abstract idea, the subject matter of the amended claims constitutes a practical application that is inventive… the claims recites the use of computer hardware, such as a processing device, and data storage to implement the claimed invention. This conclusion is further supported by Example 25 of the 2015 July Update Appendix 1 to the 2014 PEG (Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines), in which a non-transitory computer readable medium and supporting elements were deemed subject matter patent eligible.
The Examiner’s response:
Applicant asserts “Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 1-7 are directed to statutory subject matter, despite the Office Action's assertion, because Claim 1 recite a system which incorporates and requires multiple hardware components in association with non-transitory computer readable software to generate dedicated routes for runners, which places the claimed invention squarely within the categories defined by § 101…, the subject matter is not directed to a judicial exception. Additionally, even if, arguendo, the claims were directed to an abstract idea, the subject matter of the amended claims constitutes a practical application that is inventive… the claims recites the use of computer hardware, such as a processing device, and data storage to implement the claimed invention”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations “a route find utility configure to create routes…”, “a processing device configured to create routes…”, “wherein the route finder utility configured to find routes…”, and “the route finder utility determines,… an accident has occurred”, under its broadest reasonably interpretation, these limitations can reasonably be performed by a human mentally or with aid of pen and paper. Further, applicant asserts “the subject matter is not directed to a judicial exception. Additionally, even if, arguendo, the claims were directed to an abstract idea, the subject matter of the amended claims constitutes a practical application that is inventive” however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because applicant’s arguments do not elaborate how the claimed invention’s additional elements/limitations considered both individually and in combination integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2. Furthermore, the Examiner submits the additional elements of “graphical user interface”, “processing device”, “data storage”, and “non-transitory computer-readable medium” are merely tools being used to perform the abstract idea. Further, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic or general purpose computer. These additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Additionally, the Examiner agrees with applicant’s arguments “Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 1-7 are directed to statutory subject matter… because Claim 1 recite a system…” that the claim is directed toward a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories as indicated in the Office Action mailed on 06 November 2025 under step 1 “statutory category – yes”.
Examiner notes that the rejection has been modified reflecting the amendment most recently submitted by applicant.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
The claim is directed toward a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.3.
Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recites an abstract idea. The claim recites “a route finder utility configured to create route”, “a processing device configured to create route, wherein the processing device creates routes in view of travel data comprising: a distance, a start location, an end location, and stopover destinations”, “wherein the route finder utility is configure to find routes via input from a user, process the input…and create routes via the processing device and information stored in the data storage system”, and “the route finder utility determines…an accident has occurred” which given their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, a human mind could reasonably create/determine a route and/or plurality of routes based on the travel data. As such, the claim recites at least one abstract idea (e.g. mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial except ion to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, for example, the claimed elements “a data storage system comprising travel information comprising: maps, weather, and safety data”, and “wherein the SOS message is sent to emergency contacts stored in the data storage system…” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to mere pre – or post-solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As to the limitations “the route finder utility further configure to generate graphical user interfaces on a client device accessible by the user, and wherein the client device is configured to display real-time location, an inactive map, and travel data vial cellular communications or global positioning systems” and “wherein the emergency contact information is employed, via the processing device, to generate an emergency SOS message when the user initiates an SOS message “ these limitations appear to be “apply it” limitations recited at a high-level of generality. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “a graphical user interface”, “a processing device”, and “a data storage system”. The Examiner submits the additional elements are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “a graphical user interface”, “a processing device”, and “a data storage system” are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic or general purpose computer. The components merely automate the aforementioned steps (MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(I)). These additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more
than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to provide an
inventive concept in Step 2B, for example, the claimed elements “a data storage system comprising travel information comprising: maps, weather, and safety data”, and “wherein the SOS message is sent to emergency contacts stored in the data storage system…” are well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the art. See MPEP 2106.05(d), II, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);”.
As to the limitations “the route finder utility further configure to generate graphical user interfaces on a client device accessible by the user, and wherein the client device is configured to display real-time location, an inactive map, and travel data vial cellular communications or global positioning systems” and “wherein the emergency contact information is employed, via the processing device, to generate an emergency SOS message when the user initiates an SOS message “, the limitations appear to be “apply it” limitations recited at a high-level generality, since the limitation invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process – simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea. Section 2106.05(f) [R- 10.2019] of the MPEP states the following: “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity… or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more". The limitation amounts to computer implementation of mental processes including an evaluation, judgment, opinion Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements are merely tools being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “a graphical user interface”, “a processing device”, and “a data storage system” are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their dependency to the independent claims.
Claims 2-5 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application, because the additional elements are directed toward
additional aspects of judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional
additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, claim 2 recites “the route finder utility can be configured to generate graphical interfaces on a smart device…and combinations thereof”, the limitation appears to be an “apply it” limitation recited at a high-level generality.
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under similar rationale as their independent claims.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajnai (US 20180266839 A1) in view of Chokshi et al. (US 20180180430) , in view of Kim (US 20230175853 A1), in view of Beurepaire et al. (US 20200166356 A1), in view of Dewan et al. (US 20200217680 A1), in view of Siskind et al. (US 20190242718 A1), and further in view of Majjigi et al. (US 20240075895 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tajnai discloses A system, comprising a non-transitory computer-
readable medium executed by a processing system, the system comprising: a data
processing system comprising: a route finder utility configured to create routes, the route finder utility comprising: a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface comprises: (Figure 1, and [0028] “a user's computing device 20”) a home graphical user interface, (Figure 10) a view routes graphical user interface, ([0006] “user can request travel routes that meet individualized criteria. The system will only display routes that meet all the criteria, so the user doesn't need to view each route to determine viability.”) a my route graphical user interface, and (Figure 9) a profile graphical user interface, (Figure 7)
a processing device configured to create routes, wherein the processing device creates
routes in view of travel data comprising: a distance, a start location, an end location, (Abstract “Service user creates a route by inputting a start location and a destination, then approving of or rejecting characteristics of a route, such as distance, estimated time of arrival, construction, or traffic congestion. Service will then provide only routes that match all criteria. User can save routes and route settings. User can report conditions along route. Users can share routes and view routes shared by others.”)
wherein the route finder utility is configured to find routes via input from a user ([0006]
“system and application in which the user can request travel routes that meet individualized criteria. The system will only display routes that meet all the criteria, so the user doesn't need to view each route to determine viability.”, and [0031] “the system 1 will eliminate routes that don't meet the user's selected criteria for travel route conditions. These factors can include distance, estimated time of arrival, traffic conditions, avoiding highway/freeway/motorway, avoiding ferries, and any other data Google provides.) , process the input via the processing device and create routes (Abstract “Service user creates a route by inputting a start location and a destination, then approving of or rejecting characteristics of a route, such as distance, estimated time of arrival, construction, or traffic congestion. Service will then provide only routes that match all criteria.”)
the route finder utility is further configured to generate graphical user interfaces on a
client device accessible by the user, and (Figure 1, and Figures 3 – 14) wherein the client device is configured to display real-time location, an interactive map, and travel data via cellular communications or global positioning systems. (Figure 13)
Tajnai fails to explicitly disclose a data storage system comprising travel information
comprising: maps, emergency contact information, weather, and safety data,
Chokshi et al. teaches a data storage system comprising travel information comprising:
maps, (112, 115, Figure 1, [0019] “The data store further includes map data 112. The map data 112 include the information used to calculate routes, to render graphical maps, and the like. For example, the map data 112 include elements such as intersections and the roads connecting them, bridges, off-ramps, buildings, and the like, along with their associated locations (e.g., as geo-coordinates).”, [0024] “The data store further includes safety data 115. The safety data 115 is relevant to the safety of driving on a route, either directly or indirectly providing information about the safety of various road segments at various times.”, [0029] “The environment of FIG. 1 also includes one or more third-party data sources 130. The third-party data sources 130 have safety data 135, which either directly or indirectly provide information about the safety of various road segments at various times. For example, the third-party safety data 135 could include”, and [0036] “(G) Weather data (e.g., storms, rain, floods, etc.).”)
wherein the safety data stored in the data storage system comprises: crime statistics,
(112, 115, Figure 1, [0019] “The data store further includes map data 112. The map data 112 include the information used to calculate routes, to render graphical maps, and the like. For example, the map data 112 include elements such as intersections and the roads connecting them, bridges, off-ramps, buildings, and the like, along with their associated locations (e.g., as geo-coordinates)... the map data 112 also includes data about the “road segments”—the portions of the roads that connect the various pairs of map points such as intersections. The road segments may have associated data, such as road segment distance, the typical time to traverse a road segment from the point on one side of the segment to the point on the other, and the like. In some embodiments, this data is augmented to include a safety rating of the segment for each of a set of times of day”, [0024] “The data store further includes safety data 115. The safety data 115 is relevant to the safety of driving on a route, either directly or indirectly providing information about the safety of various road segments at various times.”, [0029] “The environment of FIG. 1 also includes one or more third-party data sources 130. The third-party data sources 130 have safety data 135, which either directly or indirectly provide information about the safety of various road segments at various times. For example, the third-party safety data 135 could include”, [0033] “(D) City or other governmental databases or websites, such as those providing domestic crime data.”, and [0036] “(G) Weather data (e.g., storms, rain, floods, etc.).”)
wherein the route finder utility is configured to find routes via input from a user, process
the input via the processing device and create routes via the processing device and information stored in the data storage system; and (Figure 6, and [0041] “a user interface of the application 121 on the client device 120 of a rider, according to one embodiment. The user interface presents the rider with multiple route options optimizing the route according to different criteria. Two such criteria—price and safety—are illustrated in FIG. 6 for purposes of simplicity, but it is appreciated that any number of such options could be provided. Specifically, the data areas 604 indicate the criteria for which the route was optimized (namely, price and safety, in the example of FIG. 6), the estimated arrival time (ETA), and the degree of traffic along the determined route. The map regions 608 visually depict the determined route on a map.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Tajnai to incorporate generating routes based on travel information such as safety data, weather data, and map data as taught by Chokshi et al. for the purpose of determining routes based on user’s preferences, increasing user usability.
Tajnai in combination with Chokshi et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processing
device creates routes in view of travel data comprising: stopover destinations,
Kim teaches wherein the processing device creates routes in view of travel data
comprising: stopover destinations, (Figure 1, [0087] “the special purpose processors included in the user terminal 210 and the information processing system 230 may improve the functioning of navigation guidance by allowing users other than the driver to change the navigation route by adding or changing a stopover”, [0101] “In response to receiving the user input of changing the driving route information, the processor may output the changed user driving route information. Specifically, if the processor receives a user input of touching edit icons 526_1, 526_2, 526_3, and 526_4 for changing a departure point, one or more stopovers, or a destination, the processor may output user driving route information including at least one of the changed departure point, one or more stopovers, or destination.”, and [0113] “the processor may output driving guidance information changed to the new driving route in response to a user's voice of adding a recommended stopover.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Tajnai in combination with Chokshi et al. to incorporate adding or changing a stopover corresponding to a route as taught by Kim for the purpose of “allowing users other than the driver to change the navigation route by adding or changing a stopover through their own user terminal”, increasing user usability. ([0087], Kim)
Tajnai in combination with Chokshi et al. and Kim fails to explicitly disclose wherein the
maps stored in the data storage system comprise data comprising: streets, paths, bike routes, running routes, dirt roads, and hiking trails.
Beurepaire et al. teaches wherein the maps stored in the data storage system comprise
data comprising: (Figure 1, 110) streets, paths, ([0037] “The map database 110 may include node data, road segment data or link data, point of interest (POI) data, or the like. The map database 110 may also include cartographic data, routing data, and/or maneuvering data... the road segment data records may be links or segments representing roads, streets, or paths, and may be used in calculating a route or recorded route information for determination of one or more personalized routes.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Tajnai in combination with Chokshi et al. and Kim to incorporate map database including road segment data as taught by Beurepaire et al. for the purpose of “calculating a route or recorded route information for determination of one or more personalized routes.” ([0037], Beurepaire et al.)
Tajnai in combination with Chokshi et al., Kim, and Beurepaire et al. fails to explicitly
disclose bike routes, running routes, dirt roads, and hiking trails.
Dewan et al. teaches bike routes, running routes, dirt roads, and hiking trails. (figure 6,
[0099] “geographical regions/types of terrain (e.g., cities, neighborhoods, forests, hills/mountains, valleys, ocean/beach areas, tropical areas, desert areas, etc.), landmarks, environments (e.g., sun, rain, snow, etc.), parks, sidewalks, running/biking/hiking paths, pave or dirt streets/roads, flat surfaces/roads/trails, steeper surfaces/roads/trails, a combination of various elevations, distances, or other types of interests commonly selected for traversing a surfaces/roads/trails (e.g., running, walking, hiking, etc.) for individual runners using existing run data.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Tajnai in combination with Chokshi et al., Kim, and Beurepaire et al. to incorporate bike routes, running routes, dirt roads, and hiking trails as taught by Dewan et al. for the purpose of allowing the user to customize travel routes based on the user’s preferences, increasing users’ usability.
Tajnai in combination with Chokshi et al., Kim , Beurepaire et al. and Dewan et al. fails to
explicitly disclose wherein: the safety data stored in the data storage system comprises: road construction information,
Siskind et al. teaches wherein: the safety data stored in the data storage system
comprises: road construction information, (1210, Figure 12, and [0081] “traffic-related information is accessed from a data store. As used herein, the phrase “traffic-related information” is not meant to be limiting and may encompass all types of events that would influence movement of traffic including auto-accident data, street-construction data, street-closure data, weather-interference data, and/or stalled-car data.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Tajnai in combination with Chokshi et al., Kim, Beurepaire et al., and Dewan et al. to incorporate the traffic-related information (e.g. street-construction data) as taught by Siskind et al. for the purpose of “helping a person navigate away from dangerous areas while traveling through a city”. ([0006], Siskind et al.)
However, Tajnai in combination with Chokshi et al., Kim, Beurepaire et al., Dewan et al., and
Siskind et al. fails to explicitly disclose a data storage system comprising travel information comprising: emergency contact information and wherein the emergency contact information is employed, via the processing device, to generate an emergency SOS message when the user initiates an SOS message or the route finder utility determines, via the processing device an accident has occurred, wherein the SOS message is sent to emergency contacts stored in the data storage system, or emergency professionals selected from the group consisting essentially of hospitals, 911, fire departments, emergency medical technicians, police, and combinations thereof.
Majjigi et al. teaches a data storage system comprising travel information comprising:
emergency contact information…wherein the emergency contact information is employed, via the processing device, to generate an emergency SOS message when the user initiates an SOS message or the route finder utility determines, via the processing device an accident has occurred, (Figure 1, and [0048] “The disclosed crash detection embodiments allow a crash device, such as smartwatch 100, to detect when a user is in a crash, while also reducing the occurrence of false crash detections. In some embodiments, if a crash is detected, smartwatch 100 presents user interface (UI) 101 with a wellness check for a predetermined time period. If the user is responsive, the user can swipe “SOS Emergency Call” affordance 102 to contact emergency services… If, however, after the predetermined time period expires the user is unresponsive (e.g., there is no user interaction with UI 101), a countdown timer starts (e.g., counting down from 10). When the countdown ends, emergency services and/or the user's emergency contact list is automatically contacted through one or more communication modalities (e.g., via a phone call or text message).”) wherein the SOS message is sent to emergency contacts stored in the data storage system, or emergency professionals selected from the group consisting essentially of hospitals, 911, fire departments, emergency medical technicians, police, and combinations thereof. ([0048] “If, however, after the predetermined time period expires the user is unresponsive (e.g., there is no user interaction with UI 101), a countdown timer starts (e.g., counting down from 10). When the countdown ends, emergency services and/or the user's emergency contact list is automatically contacted through one or more communication modalities (e.g., via a phone call or text message).”, and [0050] “If after the countdown finishes there is no response from the user (e.g., no interaction with UI 101), emergency services are contacted 204 (e.g., 911 is dialed). This example timeline 200 is for illustrative purposes. Other timelines with different time limits, or different numbers and/or types of alert escalations can also be used.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Tajnai in combination with Chokshi et al., Kim, Beurepaire et al., Dewan et al., and Siskind et al. to incorporate contacting emergency services/emergency contacts from the user’s mobile device (e.g. smartwatch and/or smartphone) when an accident has occurred as taught by Majjigi et al. for the purpose of providing the user immediate access to getting help in an emergency situation, increasing users’ usability.
Regarding claim 2, Tajnai in view of Chokshi et al., Kim, Beurepaire et al., Dewan et al.,
Siskind et al., and Majjigi et al. discloses The system of claim 1,
Tajnai disclose wherein: the route finder utility can be configured to generate graphical
user interfaces on a smart device selected from the group consisting essentially of smart cellular phones, smart watches, smart wearables, and combinations thereof. (Figure 3 – 14, and [0028] “the system 1 is accessed from a user's computing device 20 through a web browser over HTTP and/or HTTPS protocols 500 or wireless network or cell phone to cell phone connection. A computing device 20, such as a cell phone, that can access the system 1 must have some version of a CPU, CPU memory, local hard disk, keyboard/keypad/input and display unit. The computing device 20 can be any desktop, laptop, tablet, smart phone or general purpose computing device with an appropriate amount of memory suitable for this purpose and an active connection to the Internet 500”)
Regarding claim 3, Tajnai in view of Chokshi et al., Kim, Beurepaire et al., Dewan et al.,
Siskind et al., and Majjigi et al. The system of claim 1,
Tajnai discloses wherein: the route finder utility is configured to allow the user to provide
travel data via a mouse, a keypad, a touch screen, or a microphone. (Figure 10, [0028] “A computing device 20, such as a cell phone, that can access the system 1 must have some version of a CPU, CPU memory, local hard disk, keyboard/keypad/input and display unit. The computing device 20 can be any desktop, laptop, tablet, smart phone or general purpose computing device with an appropriate amount of memory suitable for this purpose and an active connection to the Internet 500.”, and [0037] “the Route Overview page allows the user to input the starting location and the destination. A route is displayed, showing distance and estimated time. There are options to either edit details of the route or to start the route. When a new route is created, user is shown the New Route Detail page, FIG. 11, displaying what qualifiers a route has, allow user to not permit qualifiers and to add areas to avoid”)
Regarding claim 4, Tajnai in view of Chokshi et al., Kim, Beurepaire et al., Dewan et al.,
Siskind et al., and Majjigi et al. The system of claim 1,
Tajnai discloses wherein: the route finder utility is configured to generate custom maps,
via the processing device (Figure 10, [0006] “system and application in which the user can request travel routes that meet individualized criteria. The system will only display routes that meet all the criteria, so the user doesn't need to view each route to determine viability.”, and [0031] “the system 1 will eliminate routes that don't meet the user's selected criteria for travel route conditions. These factors can include distance, estimated time of arrival, traffic conditions, avoiding highway/freeway/motorway, avoiding ferries, and any other data Google provides.)
Chokshi et al. teaches generate custom maps, via the processing device and data storage
system (112, 115, figure 1, figure 6, [0019] “The data store further includes map data 112. The map data 112 include the information used to calculate routes, to render graphical maps, and the like. For example, the map data 112 include elements such as intersections and the roads connecting them, bridges, off-ramps, buildings, and the like, along with their associated locations (e.g., as geo-coordinates).”, [0024] “The data store further includes safety data 115. The safety data 115 is relevant to the safety of driving on a route, either directly or indirectly providing information about the safety of various road segments at various times.”, [0029] “The environment of FIG. 1 also includes one or more third-party data sources 130. The third-party data sources 130 have safety data 135, which either directly or indirectly provide information about the safety of various road segments at various times. For example, the third-party safety data 135 could include”, and [0036] “(G) Weather data (e.g., storms, rain, floods, etc.).”, and [0041] “a user interface of the application 121 on the client device 120 of a rider, according to one embodiment. The user interface presents the rider with multiple route options optimizing the route according to different criteria. Two such criteria—price and safety—are illustrated in FIG. 6 for purposes of simplicity, but it is appreciated that any number of such options could be provided. Specifically, the data areas 604 indicate the criteria for which the route was optimized (namely, price and safety, in the example of FIG. 6), the estimated arrival time (ETA), and the degree of traffic along the determined route. The map regions 608 visually depict the determined route on a map.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Tajnai in combination with Chokshi et al., Kim, Beurepaire et al., Dewan et al., Siskind et al., and Majjigi et al. to incorporate the teachings of Chokshi et al. for the same reasons stated in the motivation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Tajnai in view of Chokshi et al., Kim, Beurepaire et al., Dewan et al.,
Siskind et al., and Majjigi et al. discloses The system of claim 4,
Kim teaches wherein: the route finder utility is configured to alter the route in view of:
stopovers, locomotion mode, or starting time. (Figure 1, [0087] “the special purpose processors included in the user terminal 210 and the information processing system 230 may improve the functioning of navigation guidance by allowing users other than the driver to change the navigation route by adding or changing a stopover”, [0101] “In response to receiving the user input of changing the driving route information, the processor may output the changed user driving route information. Specifically, if the processor receives a user input of touching edit icons 526_1, 526_2, 526_3, and 526_4 for changing a departure point, one or more stopovers, or a destination, the processor may output user driving route information including at least one of the changed departure point, one or more stopovers, or destination.”, and [0113] “the processor may output driving guidance information changed to the new driving route in response to a user's voice of adding a recommended stopover.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Tajnai in combination with Chokshi et al., Kim, Beurepaire et al., Dewan et al., Siskind et al., and Majjigi et al. to incorporate the teachings of Chokshi et al. for the same reasons stated in the motivation of claim 1.
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 MISA HUYNH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MISA H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666