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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/08/2023 have been fully considered by the examiner. 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 s ignificantly more. 101 Analysis – Step 1 Claims 1-20 are directed to a method (i.e. a process). 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1 Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG , the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Claims 1-20 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1: A traffic flow migration situation display method, executed by a computer device, the method comprising: obtaining, by a processor, a road network driving trajectory of a vehicle, the road network driving trajectory representing a trajectory generated by the vehicle traveling in a road network, and the road network driving trajectory being composed of links in the road network; determining traffic flow migration data of a target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the road network driving trajectory and the target region, the traffic flow migration data comprising region-level traffic flow migration data and road-level traffic flow migration data, the region-level traffic flow migration data representing a traffic inflow/outflow situation of the target region, and the road-level traffic flow migration data representing a traffic inflow/outflow situation of a boundary link of the target region; and displaying, via a display screen, a traffic flow migration situation of the target region based on the traffic flow migration data. The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because user its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the limitation of “ determining traffic flow migration data of a target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the road network driving trajectory and the target region, the traffic flow migration data comprising region-level traffic flow migration data and road-level traffic flow migration data, the region-level traffic flow migration data representing a traffic inflow/outflow situation of the target region, and the road-level traffic flow migration data representing a traffic inflow/outflow situation of a boundary link of the target region ” i n the context of the claim encompasses the user making a determination (i.e. a mental process) of traffic flow migration data of a target region, which is based on a spatial positional relationship between the driving trajectory data and a target region, wherein the region-level traffic flow migration data representing a traffic inflow/outflow situation of the target region, and the road-level traffic flow migration data representing a traffic inflow/outflow situation of a boundary link of the target region . This can be done on a map, wherein the user draws arrows that represents the traffic inflow/outflow of a chosen (i.e. target) region of a boundary link. Since this can be done via drawing on a map based on obtained trajectories of vehicles, then these limitations recite a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The same rational applies to independent claims 13 and 18. Claim 2: wherein determining traffic flow migration data of a target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the road network driving trajectory and the target region comprises: determining a trajectory origin and a trajectory destination of the road network driving trajectory; and determining the region-level traffic flow migration data of the target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the trajectory origin and the target region and a spatial positional relationship between the trajectory destination and the target region. Regarding claim 2, the bolded limitation above in the context of the claim encompasses the user determining a trajectory origin and destination (i.e. a mental process), and determining the region-level traffic flow migration data of the target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the trajectory origin and the target region and a spatial positional relationship between the trajectory destination and the target region. This determination can be done on a map, wherein the user draws the region-level traffic flow migration da ta based on a spatial positional relationship between the trajectory origin and the target region and a spatial positional relationship between the trajectory destination and the target region. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claims 14 and 19. Claim 3: wherein determining the region-level traffic flow migration data of the target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the trajectory origin and the target region and a spatial positional relationship between the trajectory destination and the target region comprises: updating traffic outflow data of the target region in response to the trajectory origin being within the target region and the trajectory destination being outside the target region; updating traffic inflow data of the target region in response to the trajectory origin being outside the target region and the trajectory destination being within the target region; and determining the traffic outflow data of the target region and the traffic inflow data of the target region as the region-level traffic flow migration data. Regarding claim 3, the bolded limitation above in the context of the claim encompasses the user updating the traffic outflow and inflow data, based on whether the trajectory of the vehicle is heading from outside to inside the target region, and vice versa. Since this updating of the traffic inflow/outflow of the target region can be drawn on a map and wherein the determining step is a mental process, then these limitations recites at least one abstract idea. Claim 4: wherein determining traffic flow migration data of a target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the road network driving trajectory and the target region comprises: determining a candidate link contained in the road network driving trajectory; and determining the road-level traffic flow migration data of the target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the candidate link and a region boundary of the target region Regarding claim 4, the bolded limitation above in the context of the claim encompasses the user determining a candidate link contained in the road network driving trajectory, which is a process that can be done by a user choosing the candidate link (i.e. a mental process). Then, the user can make a determination of the traffic flow based on a spatial positional relationship between the candidate link and a region boundary of the target region . Since this can be done and drawn on a map, then these limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claims 15 and 20. Claim 5: wherein determining the road-level traffic flow migration data of the target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the candidate link and a region boundary of the target region comprises: determining the candidate link intersecting the region boundary as the boundary link; updating traffic outflow data of the boundary link in response to the trajectory origin of the road network driving trajectory being within the target region and the trajectory destination being outside the target region; updating traffic inflow data of the boundary link in response to the trajectory origin of the road network driving trajectory being outside the target region and the trajectory destination being within the target region; and determining the traffic outflow data of the boundary link and the traffic inflow data of the boundary link as the road-level traffic flow migration data. Regarding claim 5, the bolded limitation above in the context of the claim encompasses the user updating the traffic outflow and inflow data based on the determined candidate link and the boundary link, and based on whether the trajectory of the vehicle is heading from outside to inside the target region, and vice versa. Since this updating of the traffic inflow/outflow of the target region can be drawn on a map and wherein the determining step is a mental process, then these limitations recites at least one abstract idea. Claim 6: wherein determining the candidate link intersecting the region boundary as the boundary link comprises: determining a first line segment based on a link coordinate origin and a link coordinate destination of the candidate link; determining a second line segment based on a first boundary coordinate point and a second boundary coordinate point of the region boundary; and determining the candidate link as the boundary link in response to the first line segment intersecting the second line segment. Regarding claim 6, the bolded limitation above in the context of the claim encompasses the user determining the candidate link intersecting the region boundary as the boundary link, wherein the candidate link is determined as the boundary link is response to the determined first and second line segments. Since this limitations can be done by making determinations of road links on a map, then these limitations recite a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. Claim 7: wherein before the determining a candidate link contained in the road network driving trajectory, the method further comprises: determining an origin region identifier and a destination region identifier corresponding to the road network driving trajectory, the origin region identifier and the destination region identifier being generated in a process of determining the region-level traffic flow migration data; and the determining a candidate link contai ned in the road network driving trajectory comprises: determining the candidate link contained in the road network driving trajectory in response to the origin region identifier being consistent with a region identifier of the target region, or the destination region identifier being consistent with a region identifier of the target region. Regarding claim 7, the bolded limitation above in the context of the claim encompasses the user making determinations regarding an origin/destination region identifier that corresponds to the driving trajectory and determining a candidate link based on the identifiers being consistent with a target region. Since these limitations can be done mentally, they recite an abstract idea. Claim 8: wherein before obtaining a road network driving trajectory of a vehicle, the method comprises: obtaining driving sub-trajectory data of a vehicle, the driving sub-trajectory data comprising positioning point data of a positioning point in a vehicle driving process; determining a road network driving sub-trajectory of the vehicle based on the driving sub-trajectory data and road network data, the road network driving sub-trajectory being composed of links in the road network; and splicing at least two road network driving sub-trajectories to obtain the road network driving trajectory. Claim 9: wherein determining a road network driving sub-trajectory of the vehicle based on the driving sub-trajectory data and road network data comprises: matching the positioning point to a link in the road network based on the positioning point data and a link data of the link in the road network data; and generating the road network driving sub-trajectory based on the link in the road network. Claim 10: wherein the splicing at least two road network driving sub-trajectories to obtain the road network driving trajectory comprises: obtaining an end time of an i th road network driving sub-trajectory, and a start time of an (i+1) th road network driving sub-trajectory, i being a positive integer; splicing the i th road network driving sub-trajectory and the (i+1) th road network driving sub-trajectory to create a spliced road network driving trajectory in response to a time interval between the end time and the start time being less than or equal to a threshold; and outputting the spliced road network driving trajectory in response to the time interval between the end time and the start time being greater than a threshold. Regarding claim s 8-10, the bolded limitation above in the context of the claim encompasses the user determining a sub-trajectory of the vehicle based on received data and splicing at least two road sub-trajectories to obtain one driving trajectory. Since these limitations can be done on a map and mentally, they recite an abstract idea. Furthermore, matching points on a map to generate a sub-trajectory based on the link in the road network is a process that can be done on a map, and therefore recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 16. Claim 11: determining, in response to a region division operation on a map, the target region based on a region boundary indicated by the region division operation; or determining, in response to a selection operation on a candidate region in the map, the target region based on the selection operation, wherein the candidate region is divided based on a region division rule, and the region division rule comprises at least one of an administrative region division rule and a region size division rule. Regarding claim 11, the bolded limitation above in the context of the claim encompasses the user dividing a region on a map (based on rules), which is a limitation that can be done on a map and therefore mentally. Therefore, this limitation recites at least one abstract idea. Claim 12: wherein the displaying a traffic flow migration situation of the target region based on the traffic flow migration data comprises: generating a traffic inflow identifier and a traffic outflow identifier based on the region-level traffic flow migration data ; displaying the traffic inflow identifier and the traffic outflow identifier at a display region corresponding to the target region in a map; and/or highlighting the boundary link of the target region in the map based on the road-level traffic flow migration data, wherein boundary links of different traffic inflow/outflow situations correspond to different display modes ; and displaying, in response to a selection operation on a target boundary link, the road-level traffic flow migration data corresponding to the target boundary link . Regarding claim 12, the bolded limitation above in the context of the claim encompasses the user generating traffic inflow/outflow identifiers based on the migration data, which is a step that can be done by drawing arrows on a map that signifies the migration data. Furthermore, highlighting a boundary link of the target region is a step that can be done by drawing on a map and therefore recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 17. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2 Regarding prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”): Claim 1: A traffic flow migration situation display method, executed by a computer device , the method comprising: obtaining, by a processor, a road network driving trajectory of a vehicle, the road network driving trajectory representing a trajectory generated by the vehicle traveling in a road network, and the road network driving trajectory being composed of links in the road network; determining traffic flow migration data of a target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the road network driving trajectory and the target region, the traffic flow migration data comprising region-level traffic flow migration data and road-level traffic flow migration data, the region-level traffic flow migration data representing a traffic inflow/outflow situation of the target region, and the road-level traffic flow migration data representing a traffic inflow/outflow situation of a boundary link of the target region; and displaying, via a display screen, a traffic flow migration situation of the target region based on the traffic flow migration data . Claim 8: wherein before obtaining a road network driving trajectory of a vehicle, the method comprises: obtaining driving sub-trajectory data of a vehicle, the driving sub-trajectory data comprising positioning point data of a positioning point in a vehicle driving process; determining a road network driving sub-trajectory of the vehicle based on the driving sub-trajectory data and road network data, the road network driving sub-trajectory being composed of links in the road network; and splicing at least two road network driving sub-trajectories to obtain the road network driving trajectory Claim 12: wherein the displaying a traffic flow migration situation of the target region based on the traffic flow migration data comprises: generating a traffic inflow identifier and a traffic outflow identifier based on the region-level traffic flow migration data ; displaying the traffic inflow identifier and the traffic outflow identifier at a display region corresponding to the target region in a map; and/or highlighting the boundary link of the target region in the map based on the road-level traffic flow migration data, wherein boundary links of different traffic inflow/outflow situations correspond to different display modes ; and displaying, in response to a selection operation on a target boundary link, the road-level traffic flow migration data corresponding to the target boundary link. For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “ obtaining” data, and “displaying” data , the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (i.e. processors) to perform the process. In particular, obtaining and displaying step by the processors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering /displaying data ), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “ one or more processors ” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment . 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) add nothing 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, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 101 Analysis – Step 2B Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim s 1 ,8, and 15 does 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determining and comparing amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, with regards to the additional limitations of “ obtaining… “ , and “ displayin g…”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is we l l - understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “obtaining…” and “ displaying …” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional processor . The step of “obtaining” and “displaying” data is taught in the primary reference , see at least Para. 0081 and Fig. 8. Accordingly, the step of obtaining and displaying data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept and the claim is not patent eligible. 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. Claim s 1-2, 4, 7, 11 -1 5, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S. C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowe et al. US20150300835A1 (henceforth Fowe ) in view of Du et al. US20210049905A1 (henceforth Du ). Regarding claim 1, Fowe discloses: A traffic flow migration situation display method (See at least Fig. 8 and Para. 0082) , executed by a computer device (Fig. 1) , the method comprising: obtaining, by a processor, a road network driving trajectory of a vehicle, the road network driving trajectory representing a trajectory generated by the vehicle traveling in a road network, and the road network driving trajectory being composed of links in the road network (See at least Fig. 7 and Para. 0081, wherein the vehicle’s trajectory is composed of links in the road network. Further see Fig. 8 and Para. 0082.) determining traffic flow migration data of a target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the road network driving trajectory and the target region, the traffic flow migration data comprising region-level traffic flow migration data and road-level traffic flow migration data, (See at least Fig. 8 and Para. 0082, wherein the region traffic inflow/outflow is determined based on a spatial positional relationship between the road network driving trajectory and the target region . The traffic flow migration data of a target region comprises region-level traffic flow (see Fig. 8) and road-level traffic flow data (from aggregated probe trajectories on a road).) the region-level traffic flow migration data representing a traffic inflow/outflow situation of the target region, and the road-level traffic flow migration data representing a traffic inflow/outflow situation of a boundary link of the target region; (See Fig. 8 and Para. 0082, wherein the arrows represents a traffic inflow/outflow of the target region. Further see Para. 0035, “ For example, a whole city (FIG. 8) can be modeled and monitored, such that in-going traffic demands into the city, outgoing traffic from the city and internal traffic demands within the city are known and tracked in real time. “ Traffic inflow/outflow into the city and from the city includes inflow/outflow of a boundary link of the target region.) and displaying a tra ffic flow migration situation of the target region based on the traffic flow migration data. (See Fig. 8, which represents a diagram display of traffic demands into and out of a city.) Fowe does not specifically state displaying, via a display s creen, a traffic flow migration situation of the target region based on the traffic flow migration data . However, Du teaches: displaying, via a display screen (Para . 0054, “ display 320 ” ) a traffic flow migration situation of the target region based on the traffic flow migration data . (See at least Fig. 9B and Para. 0091, wherein the traffic information (which includes traffic flow migration of a target region) is displayed to the user.) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fowe to incorporate the teachings of Du to include the limitations as recited above in order for a user to analyze traffic information of a region (Para. 0072, Du ). Furthermore, “ it is desirable to provide systems and methods for determining traffic information of a region to perform traffic control efficiently ” (Para. 0003, Du ). This would create a more robust traffic management system, further reduce driver total time on a road, and enhance a navigation system by accounting for traffic in/out of a region. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fowe and Du. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in 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. Regarding c laim 2: Fowe discloses: wherein determining traffic flow migration data of a target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the road network driving trajectory and the target region comprises: determining a trajectory origin and a trajectory destination of the road network driving trajectory; (See at least Fig. 8 and Para. 0082, “ The map 800 is created from aggregating the data collected from probe trajectories , much like the probe trajectory 703 .“ In Para. 0081, the probe trajectory includes a trajectory origin and a trajectory destination .) and determining the region-level traffic flow migration data of the target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the trajectory origin and the target region and a spatial positional relationship between the trajectory destination and the target region . (Since the map 800 in Fig. 8 is aggregated with trajectory data such as probe trajectory 703, then that includes determining the region-level traffic flow based on a spatial positional relationship between the trajectory origin and the target region and a spatial positional relationship between the trajectory destination and the target region .) Regarding claim 4, Fowe does not specifically state wherein determining traffic flow migration data of a target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the road network driving trajectory and the target region comprises: determining a candidate link contained in the road network driving trajectory; and determining the road-level traffic flow migration data of the target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the candidate link and a region boundary of the target region. However, Du teaches: wherein determining traffic flow migration data of a target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the road network driving trajectory and the target region comprises: determining a candidate link contained in the road network driving trajectory; and determining the road-level traffic flow migration data of the target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the candidate link and a region boundary of the target region. (See at least Fig. 9A, which comprises a first region and a second region. The second region includes determining a candidate link (see I.sub.1 and i.sub.p in Fig. 9A and Para. 0102-0103) contained in the road network driving trajectory, which intersects with the boundary. The same rational applies to the first region, wherein a candidate link contained in the road network driving trajectory intersects with the first region. This is used to determine a road level traffic flow in and out of the region (See Para. 0075 and 0080-0081), which is based on the spatial positional relationship between the candidate link and a region boundary of the target region.) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fowe to incorporate the teachings of Du to include the limitations as recited above since “ it is desirable to provide systems and methods for determining traffic information of a region to perform traffic control efficiently ” (Para. 0003, Du ). This would create a more robust traffic management system, further reduce driver total time on a road, and enhance a navigation system by accounting for traffic in/out of a region. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fowe and Du. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in 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. Regarding claim 7, Fowe does not specifically state wherein before the determining a candidate link contained in the road network driving trajectory, the method further comprises: determining an origin region identifier and a destination region identifier corresponding to the road network driving trajectory, the origin region identifier and the destination region identifier being generated in a process of determining the region-level traffic flow migration data; and the determining a candidate link contained in the road network driving trajectory comprises: determining the candidate link contained in the road network driving trajectory in response to the origin region identifier being consistent with a region identifier of the target region, or the destination region identifier being consistent with a region identifier of the target region. However, Du teaches: wherein before the determining a candidate link contained in the road network driving trajectory, the method further comprises: determining an origin region identifier and a destination region identifier corresponding to the road network driving trajectory, the origin region identifier and the destination region identifier being generated in a process of determining the region-level traffic flow migration data; and the determining a candidate link contained in the road network driving trajectory comprises: determining the candidate link contained in the road network driving trajectory in response to the origin region identifier being consistent with a region identifier of the target region, or the destination region identifier being consistent with a region identifier of the target region . (See at least Figs. 9A-9B, wherein an origin region and destination region identifier corresponding to the road network driving trajectory is determined (which is generated in the process of determining the region-level traffic flow). Furthermore, the candidate link (see I.sub.1 and i.sub.p in Fig. 9A and Para. 0102-0103) that is contained in the road network driving trajectory is determined such that it intersects with the first and second boundary, and is therefore determined in response to the destination region identifier being consistent with the region identifier of the target region.) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fowe to incorporate the teachings of Du to include the limitations as recited above since “ it is desirable to provide systems and methods for determining traffic information of a region to perform traffic control efficiently ” (Para. 0003, Du ). This would create a more robust traffic management system, further reduce driver total time on a road, and enhance a navigation system by accounting for traffic in/out of a region. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fowe and Du. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in 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. Regarding claim 11, Fowe does not specifically state further comprising: determining, in response to a region division operation on a map, the target region based on a region boundary indicated by the region division operation; or determining, in response to a selection operation on a candidate region in the map, the target region based on the selection operation, wherein the candidate region is divided based on a region division rule, and the region division rule comprises at least one of an administrative region division rule and a region size division rule. However, Du teaches: further comprising: determining, in response to a region division operation on a map, the target region based on a region boundary indicated by the region division operation; or determining, in response to a selection operation on a candidate region in the map, the target region based on the selection operation, wherein the candidate region is divided based on a region division rule, and the region division rule comprises at least one of an administrative region division rule and a region size division rule. (See at least Para. 0071-0072, wherein a target region (which includes the boundary) is determined in response to a region division operation on a map.) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fowe to incorporate the teachings of Du to include the limitations as recited above since “ it is desirable to provide systems and methods for determining traffic information of a region to perform traffic control efficiently ” (Para. 0003, Du ). This would create a more robust traffic management system, further reduce driver total time on a road, and enhance a navigation system by accounting for traffic in/out of a region. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fowe and Du. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in 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. Regarding claim 12, Fowe discloses: wherein the displaying a traffic flow migration situation of the target region based on the traffic flow migration data comprises: generating a traffic inflow identifier and a traffic outflow identifier based on the region-level traffic flow migration data; displaying the traffic inflow identifier and the traffic outflow identifier at a display region corresponding to the target region in a map ; and/or … (See at least Fig. 8, wherein the inward and outward arrows represent the region-level traffic flow migration data, and is displayed corresponding to the target region (i.e. the boundary) in a map.) Regarding claim 13, Fowe and Du discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational. Fowe further discloses: A device comprising: a processor, a display in communication with the processor, and a memory in communication with the processor, the memory storing a plurality of instructions that when executed by the processor, configure the processor to: (See at least Para. 0096 and 0099) Regarding claim 14, Fowe and Du discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational. Regarding claim 15, Fowe and Du discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational. Regarding claim 17, Fowe and Du discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 12 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational. Regarding claim 18, Fowe and Du discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational. Regarding claim 19, Fowe and Du discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational. Regarding claim 20, Fowe and Du discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational. Claim 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowe and Du further in view of Zhang et al. “ Deep Spatio -Temporal Residual Networks for Citywide Crowd Flows Prediction .2017”(henceforth Zhang ). Regarding claim 3, Fowe and Du discloses the li mitations as recited in claims 1 and 2 above. Fowe does not specifically state wherein determining the region-level traffic flow migration data of the target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the trajectory origin and the target region and a spatial positional relationship between the trajectory destination and the target region comprises: updating traffic outflow data of the target region in response to the trajectory origin being within the target region and the trajectory destination being outside the target region; updating traffic inflow data of the target region in response to the trajectory origin being outside the target region and the trajectory destination being within the target region; and determining the traffic outflow data of the target region and the traffic inflow data of the target region as the region-level traffic flow migration data. However, Zhang teaches: wherein determining the region-level traffic flow migration data of the target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the trajectory origin and the target region and a spatial positional relationship between the trajectory destination and the target region comprises: updating traffic outflow data of the target region in response to the trajectory origin being within the target region and the trajectory destination being outside the target region; updating traffic inflow data of the target region in response to the trajectory origin being outside the target region and the trajectory destination being within the target region; and determining the traffic outflow data of the target region and the traffic inflow data of the target region as the region-level traffic flow migration data. (See at least Fig. 1 (a)-1(b) below, wherein the inflow/outflow of the target region is updated based on a trajectory origin being outside the target region and the trajectory destination being within the target region, and based on the trajectory origin being within the target region and the trajectory destination being outside of the target region. The traffic outflow and inflow data is the region-level (Fig. 1(a) ) traffic flow migration data. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fowe to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to include the limitations as recited above in order to more accurately determine the inflow/outflow of vehicles in a region, which would be beneficial for risk assessment and traffic management (See Page 1, column 2, “Introduction” of Zhang ). This would create a more robust traffic management system, further reduce driver total time on a road, and enhance a navigation system by accounting for traffic in/out of a region. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fowe and Zhang. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in 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. Regarding claim 5, Fowe and Du discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1-2, and 4 above. Fow e does not specifically state wherein determining the road-level traffic flow migration data of the target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the candidate link and a region boundary of the target region comprises: determining the candidate link intersecting the region boundary as the boundary link ; and determining the traffic outflow data of the boundary link and the traffic inflow data of the boundary link as the road-level traffic flow migration dat a. However, Du teaches: wherein determining the road-level traffic flow migration data of the target region based on a spatial positional relationship between the candidate link and a region boundary of the target region comprises: determining the candidate link intersecting the region boundary as the boundary link; and determining the traffic outflow data of the boundary link and the traffic inflow data of the boundary link as the road-level traffic flow migration data. (See at least Fig. 9A, which comprises a first region and a second region. The second region includes determining a candidate link (see I.sub.1 and i.sub.p in Fig. 9A and Para. 0102-0103) contained in the road network driving trajectory, which intersects with the boundary link. The same rational applies to the first region, wherein a candidate link contained in the road network driving trajectory intersects with the first region. This is used to determine a road level traffic flow in and out of the boundary link.) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fowe to incorporate the teachings of Du to include the limitations as recited above since “ it is desirable to provide systems and methods for determining traffic information of a region to perform traffic control efficiently ” (Para. 0003, Du ). This would create a more robust traffic management system, further reduce driver total time on a road, and enhance a navigation system by accounting for traffic in/out of a region. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fowe and Du. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in 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. Fow e does not specifically state updating traffic outflow data of the boundary link in response to the trajectory origin of the road network driving trajectory being within the target region and the trajectory destination being outside the target region; updating traffic inflow data of the boundary link in response to the trajectory origin of the road network driving trajectory being outside the target region and the trajectory destination being within the target region . However, Zhang teaches: updating traffic outflow data of the boundary link in response to the trajectory origin of the road network driving trajectory being within the target region and the trajectory destination being outside the target region; updating traffic inflow data of the boundary link in response to the trajectory origin of the road network driving trajectory being outside the target region and the trajectory destination being within the target region; (See at least Fig. 1(a)-1(b) below, wherein the inflow/outflow of the target region is updated based on a trajectory origin being outside the target region and the trajectory destination being within the target region, and based on the trajectory origin being within the target region and the trajectory destination being outside of the target region. The traffic outflow and inflow data is the region-level (Fig. 1(a)) traffic flow migration data.) It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fowe to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to include the limitations as recited above in order to more accurately determine the inflow/outflow of vehicles in a region, which would be beneficial for risk assessment and traffic management (See Page 1, column 2, “Introduction” of Zhang ). This would create a more robust traffic management system, further reduce driver total time on a road, and enhance a navigation system by accounting for traffic in/out of a region. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Fowe and Zhang. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in 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. Regarding claim 6, Fowe does not specifically state wherein determining the candidate link intersecting the region boundary as the boundary link comprises: determining a first line segment based on a link coordinate origin and a link coordinate destination of the candidate link; determining a second line segment based on a first boundary coordinate point and a second boundary coordinate point of the region boundary; and determining the candidate link as the boundary link in response to the first line segment intersecting the second line segment. However, Du teaches: wherein determining the candidate link intersecting the region boundary as the boundary link comprises: determining a first line segment based on a link coordinate origin and a link coordinate destination of the candidate link; determining a second line segment based on a first boundary coordinate point and a second boundary coordinate point of the region boundary;