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 action is in reply to the Application Number 18/359,835 filed on 07/26/2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 10/06/2025.
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 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more. The claims are being rejected according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 50-57 (January 7, 2019).
Step One: Does the Claim Fall Within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 is directed towards a method (process). Dependent claims 2-9 are also directed towards a method (process). Claim 10 is directed towards a system (machine). Dependent claims 11-18 are also directed towards a system (machine). Finally, claim 19 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (machine). Dependent claim 20 is also directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (machine).
Step Two A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. Taking into account claim 1 as one example, the claim recites receiving a transportation request comprising an origin location and a destination location, determining a first shortest path from the origin location to the destination location, the first shortest path comprising a first plurality of maneuvers and a total path value, identifying a subset of maneuvers from the first plurality of maneuvers that are each associated with a safety flag indicating maneuvers associated with unsafe driving conditions based on real-time traffic data, and a penalty value, generating a modified total path value by applying the penalty value to each of the identified subset of maneuvers, in response to identifying that the modified total path value exceeds a threshold value, determining a second shortest path from the origin location to the destination location that avoids maneuvers with the safety flag, generating navigation instructions comprising a second plurality of maneuvers associated with the second shortest path, and transmitting the navigation instructions to a computing device. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses an individual analyzing a path, noticing a vehicle traversing the path, estimating an alternative route with a shorter distance, and optimizing the vehicle’s path by providing driving instructions to a driver of the vehicle to traverse the alternative route in order to save time. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step Two A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. Claims 1 and 19 recite one additional element – a computing device. The computing device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a means to transmit and receive data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing device. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites three additional elements – a processor, a memory, and a computing device. All three elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor, memory, and computing device. Accordingly, the 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.
This type of abstract idea recited in claims 1-20 is a mental process.
Step Two B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept
No. Regarding claims 1 and 19, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing device. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a computing device cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 10, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor, a memory, and a computing device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor, memory, and computing device. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a processor, a memory, and a computing device cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are merely further defining the abstract idea by providing field of use limitations on transmitting and receiving data and are not adding anything to the abstract idea set forth in the independent claims such that the invention will amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 and are merely field of use limitations which simply further limit the abstract idea set forth in claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively. These claims do not contain further limitations that make them subject matter eligible.
For example, dependent claim 2 merely recites the well understood, routine and conventional computing functions of data transmission and gathering. These claims do not contain further limitations that make them subject matter 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0208998 A1) in view of Yokota (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0187707 A1) in further view of Young (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0085192 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Xiang teaches:
A method comprising: receiving a transportation request comprising an origin location and a destination location;, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 186th paragraph))
a safety flag indicating maneuvers associated with unsafe driving conditions based on real-time traffic data, and a penalty value;, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 18th-22nd, 62nd-67th, 74th-81st, and 139th-142nd paragraphs, FIG. 4))
in response to identifying that the modified total path value exceeds a threshold value,, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 75th-76th paragraphs))
that avoids maneuvers with the safety flag;, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 18th-22nd, 62nd-67th, 74th-81st, and 139th-142nd paragraphs, FIG. 4))
generating navigation instructions comprising a second plurality of maneuvers associated with the second shortest path; and transmitting the navigation instructions to a computing device., (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 43rd-45th paragraphs))
Xiang does not teach but Yokota teaches:
determining a first shortest path from the origin location to the destination location, the first shortest path comprising, (See (Yokota: Detailed Description of the Invention – 45th, 46th, 48th, 55th, and 64th paragraphs))
determining a second shortest path from the origin location to the destination location, (See (Yokota: Detailed Description of the Invention – 45th, 46th, 48th, 55th, and 64th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiang with these above aforementioned teachings from Yokota in order to create an efficient complex navigation maneuver reduction system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiang’s systems and methods for safe route planning for a vehicle with Yokota’s navigation method and system for visiting multiple destinations by minimum number of stops in order to determine a shortest vehicle path from an origin to a destination. Combining Xiang and Yokota would thus provide “a navigation method and system for guiding a user to a destination, and more particularly, to a navigation method and apparatus which is able to find locations and routes to destinations for efficiently visiting a plurality of destinations with the minimum number of stops or the shortest overall distance.” (Yokota: Field of the Invention – 1st paragraph)
Xiang in view of Yokota does not teach but Young teaches:
a first plurality of maneuvers and a total path value; identifying a subset of maneuvers from the first plurality of maneuvers that are each associated with, (See (Young: Detailed Description – 50th, 54th, 59th, and 62nd paragraphs))
generating a modified total path value by applying the penalty value to each of the identified subset of maneuvers;, (See (Young: Detailed Description – 53rd-65th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiang in view of Yokota with these above aforementioned teachings from Young in order to create a safe and effective complex navigation maneuver reduction system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiang’s systems and methods for safe route planning for a vehicle with Young’s systems and methods for traffic control in order to determining a plurality of maneuvers for a vehicle to efficiently navigate from an origin to a destination. Combining Xiang and Young would thus provide “efficient and immediate techniques for identifying and controlling important or dangerous events that affect traffic at specific locations on roadways.” (Young: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 2:
Xiang in view of Yokota in further view of Young, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Xiang further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the transportation request further comprises: validating that the destination location and the origin location match a location parameter; and in response to the validation,, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 55th and 186th paragraphs))
Xiang does not teach but Young teaches:
[…] generating the modified total path value., (See (Young: Detailed Description – 53rd-65th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiang with these above aforementioned teachings from Young in order to create a safe and effective complex navigation maneuver reduction system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiang’s systems and methods for safe route planning for a vehicle with Young’s systems and methods for traffic control in order to determining a plurality of maneuvers for a vehicle to efficiently navigate from an origin to a destination. Combining Xiang and Young would thus provide “efficient and immediate techniques for identifying and controlling important or dangerous events that affect traffic at specific locations on roadways.” (Young: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 3:
Xiang in view of Yokota in further view of Young, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Xiang further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the safety flag is associated with a complex maneuver type., (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 18th-22nd, 62nd-67th, 74th-81st, and 139th-142nd paragraphs, FIG. 4))
Regarding Claim 4:
Xiang in view of Yokota in further view of Young, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. Xiang further teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein the penalty value is based on, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 67th, 74th-81st, and 139th-142nd paragraphs, FIG. 4))
Xiang does not teach but Young teaches:
[…] a difficulty of the maneuver., (See (Young: Detailed Description – 58th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiang with these above aforementioned teachings from Young in order to create a safe and effective complex navigation maneuver reduction system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiang’s systems and methods for safe route planning for a vehicle with Young’s systems and methods for traffic control in order to determining a plurality of maneuvers for a vehicle to efficiently navigate from an origin to a destination. Combining Xiang and Young would thus provide “efficient and immediate techniques for identifying and controlling important or dangerous events that affect traffic at specific locations on roadways.” (Young: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 5:
Xiang in view of Yokota in further view of Young, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Xiang further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the penalty value is further based on, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 67th, 74th-81st, and 139th-142nd paragraphs, FIG. 4))
Xiang does not teach but Young teaches:
[…] the location parameter., (See (Young: Detailed Description – 54th and 58th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiang with these above aforementioned teachings from Young in order to create a safe and effective complex navigation maneuver reduction system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiang’s systems and methods for safe route planning for a vehicle with Young’s systems and methods for traffic control in order to determining a plurality of maneuvers for a vehicle to efficiently navigate from an origin to a destination. Combining Xiang and Young would thus provide “efficient and immediate techniques for identifying and controlling important or dangerous events that affect traffic at specific locations on roadways.” (Young: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 6:
Xiang in view of Yokota in further view of Young, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Xiang does not teach but Young teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the identified subset of maneuvers is retrieved from a database of maneuvers., (See (Young: Detailed Description – 59th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiang with these above aforementioned teachings from Young in order to create a safe and effective complex navigation maneuver reduction system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiang’s systems and methods for safe route planning for a vehicle with Young’s systems and methods for traffic control in order to determining a plurality of maneuvers for a vehicle to efficiently navigate from an origin to a destination. Combining Xiang and Young would thus provide “efficient and immediate techniques for identifying and controlling important or dangerous events that affect traffic at specific locations on roadways.” (Young: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 7:
Xiang in view of Yokota in further view of Young, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Xiang does not teach but Young teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the identified subset of maneuvers is identified using a statistical model trained on historical user feedback data., (See (Young: Detailed Description – 59th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiang with these above aforementioned teachings from Young in order to create a safe and effective complex navigation maneuver reduction system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiang’s systems and methods for safe route planning for a vehicle with Young’s systems and methods for traffic control in order to determining a plurality of maneuvers for a vehicle to efficiently navigate from an origin to a destination. Combining Xiang and Young would thus provide “efficient and immediate techniques for identifying and controlling important or dangerous events that affect traffic at specific locations on roadways.” (Young: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 8:
Xiang in view of Yokota in further view of Young, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Xiang does not teach but Young teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the total path value is an aggregation of path values associated with the first plurality of maneuvers., (See (Young: Detailed Description – 54th and 58th-59th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiang with these above aforementioned teachings from Young in order to create a safe and effective complex navigation maneuver reduction system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiang’s systems and methods for safe route planning for a vehicle with Young’s systems and methods for traffic control in order to determining a plurality of maneuvers for a vehicle to efficiently navigate from an origin to a destination. Combining Xiang and Young would thus provide “efficient and immediate techniques for identifying and controlling important or dangerous events that affect traffic at specific locations on roadways.” (Young: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 9:
Xiang in view of Yokota in further view of Young, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Xiang further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the identified subset of maneuvers are consecutive maneuvers., (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 62nd, 65th, and 85th-86th paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 10:
Xiang teaches:
A system comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the system to perform operations comprising: receiving a transportation request comprising an origin location and a destination location;, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 187th and 192nd paragraphs))
a safety flag indicating maneuvers associated with unsafe driving conditions based on real-time traffic data, and a penalty value;, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 18th-22nd, 62nd-67th, 74th-81st, and 139th-142nd paragraphs, FIG. 4))
in response to identifying that the modified total path value exceeds a threshold value,, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 75th-76th paragraphs))
that avoids maneuvers with the safety flag;, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 18th-22nd, 62nd-67th, 74th-81st, and 139th-142nd paragraphs, FIG. 4))
generating navigation instructions comprising a second plurality of maneuvers associated with the second shortest path; and transmitting the navigation instructions to a computing device., (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 43rd-45th paragraphs))
Xiang does not teach but Yokota teaches:
determining a first shortest path from the origin location to the destination location, the first shortest path comprising, (See (Yokota: Detailed Description of the Invention – 45th, 46th, 48th, 55th, and 64th paragraphs))
determining a second shortest path from the origin location to the destination location, (See (Yokota: Detailed Description of the Invention – 45th, 46th, 48th, 55th, and 64th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiang with these above aforementioned teachings from Yokota in order to create an efficient complex navigation maneuver reduction system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiang’s systems and methods for safe route planning for a vehicle with Yokota’s navigation method and system for visiting multiple destinations by minimum number of stops in order to determine a shortest vehicle path from an origin to a destination. Combining Xiang and Yokota would thus provide “a navigation method and system for guiding a user to a destination, and more particularly, to a navigation method and apparatus which is able to find locations and routes to destinations for efficiently visiting a plurality of destinations with the minimum number of stops or the shortest overall distance.” (Yokota: Field of the Invention – 1st paragraph)
Xiang in view of Yokota does not teach but Young teaches:
a first plurality of maneuvers and a total path value; identifying a subset of maneuvers from the first plurality of maneuvers that are each associated with, (See (Young: Detailed Description – 50th, 54th, 59th, and 62nd paragraphs))
generating a modified total path value by applying the penalty value to each of the identified subset of maneuvers;, (See (Young: Detailed Description – 53rd-65th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiang in view of Yokota with these above aforementioned teachings from Young in order to create a safe and effective complex navigation maneuver reduction system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiang’s systems and methods for safe route planning for a vehicle with Young’s systems and methods for traffic control in order to determining a plurality of maneuvers for a vehicle to efficiently navigate from an origin to a destination. Combining Xiang and Young would thus provide “efficient and immediate techniques for identifying and controlling important or dangerous events that affect traffic at specific locations on roadways.” (Young: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 11:
Xiang in view of Yokota in further view of Young, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Xiang further teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein receiving the transportation request further comprises: validating that the destination location and the origin location match a location parameter., (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 55th and 187th paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 12:
Xiang in view of Yokota in further view of Young, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Xiang further teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein the safety flag is associated with a complex maneuver type., (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 18th-22nd, 62nd-67th, 74th-81st, and 139th-142nd paragraphs, FIG. 4))
Regarding Claim 13:
Xiang in view of Yokota in further view of Young, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 12. Xiang further teaches:
The system of claim 12, wherein the penalty value is based on, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 67th, 74th-81st, and 139th-142nd paragraphs, FIG. 4))
Xiang does not teach but Young teaches:
[…] a difficulty of the maneuver., (See (Young: Detailed Description – 58th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiang with these above aforementioned teachings from Young in order to create a safe and effective complex navigation maneuver reduction system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiang’s systems and methods for safe route planning for a vehicle with Young’s systems and methods for traffic control in order to determining a plurality of maneuvers for a vehicle to efficiently navigate from an origin to a destination. Combining Xiang and Young would thus provide “efficient and immediate techniques for identifying and controlling important or dangerous events that affect traffic at specific locations on roadways.” (Young: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 14:
Xiang in view of Yokota in further view of Young, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. Xiang further teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the penalty value is further based on, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 67th, 74th-81st, and 139th-142nd paragraphs, FIG. 4))
Xiang does not teach but Young teaches:
[…] the location parameter., (See (Young: Detailed Description – 54th and 58th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiang with these above aforementioned teachings from Young in order to create a safe and effective complex navigation maneuver reduction system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiang’s systems and methods for safe route planning for a vehicle with Young’s systems and methods for traffic control in order to determining a plurality of maneuvers for a vehicle to efficiently navigate from an origin to a destination. Combining Xiang and Young would thus provide “efficient and immediate techniques for identifying and controlling important or dangerous events that affect traffic at specific locations on roadways.” (Young: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 15:
Xiang in view of Yokota in further view of Young, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Xiang does not teach but Young teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein the identified subset of maneuvers is retrieved from a database of maneuvers., (See (Young: Detailed Description – 59th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiang with these above aforementioned teachings from Young in order to create a safe and effective complex navigation maneuver reduction system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiang’s systems and methods for safe route planning for a vehicle with Young’s systems and methods for traffic control in order to determining a plurality of maneuvers for a vehicle to efficiently navigate from an origin to a destination. Combining Xiang and Young would thus provide “efficient and immediate techniques for identifying and controlling important or dangerous events that affect traffic at specific locations on roadways.” (Young: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 16:
Xiang in view of Yokota in further view of Young, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Xiang does not teach but Young teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein the identified subset of maneuvers is identified using a statistical model trained on historical user feedback data., (See (Young: Detailed Description – 59th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiang with these above aforementioned teachings from Young in order to create a safe and effective complex navigation maneuver reduction system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiang’s systems and methods for safe route planning for a vehicle with Young’s systems and methods for traffic control in order to determining a plurality of maneuvers for a vehicle to efficiently navigate from an origin to a destination. Combining Xiang and Young would thus provide “efficient and immediate techniques for identifying and controlling important or dangerous events that affect traffic at specific locations on roadways.” (Young: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 17:
Xiang in view of Yokota in further view of Young, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Xiang does not teach but Young teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein the total path value is an aggregation of path values associated with the first plurality of maneuvers., (See (Young: Detailed Description – 54th and 58th-59th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiang with these above aforementioned teachings from Young in order to create a safe and effective complex navigation maneuver reduction system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiang’s systems and methods for safe route planning for a vehicle with Young’s systems and methods for traffic control in order to determining a plurality of maneuvers for a vehicle to efficiently navigate from an origin to a destination. Combining Xiang and Young would thus provide “efficient and immediate techniques for identifying and controlling important or dangerous events that affect traffic at specific locations on roadways.” (Young: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 18:
Xiang in view of Yokota in further view of Young, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Xiang further teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein the identified subset of maneuvers are consecutive maneuvers., (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 62nd, 65th, and 85th-86th paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 19:
Xiang teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations comprising: receiving a transportation request comprising an origin location and a destination location;, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 188th paragraph))
a safety flag indicating maneuvers associated with unsafe driving conditions based on real-time traffic data, and a penalty value;, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 18th-22nd, 62nd-67th, 74th-81st, and 139th-142nd paragraphs, FIG. 4))
in response to identifying that the modified total path value exceeds a threshold value,, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 75th-76th paragraphs))
that avoids maneuvers with the safety flag;, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 18th-22nd, 62nd-67th, 74th-81st, and 139th-142nd paragraphs, FIG. 4))
generating navigation instructions comprising a second plurality of maneuvers associated with the second shortest path; and transmitting the navigation instructions to a computing device., (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 43rd-45th paragraphs))
Xiang does not teach but Yokota teaches:
determining a first shortest path from the origin location to the destination location, the first shortest path comprising, (See (Yokota: Detailed Description of the Invention – 45th, 46th, 48th, 55th, and 64th paragraphs))
determining a second shortest path from the origin location to the destination location, (See (Yokota: Detailed Description of the Invention – 45th, 46th, 48th, 55th, and 64th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiang with these above aforementioned teachings from Yokota in order to create an efficient complex navigation maneuver reduction system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiang’s systems and methods for safe route planning for a vehicle with Yokota’s navigation method and system for visiting multiple destinations by minimum number of stops in order to determine a shortest vehicle path from an origin to a destination. Combining Xiang and Yokota would thus provide “a navigation method and system for guiding a user to a destination, and more particularly, to a navigation method and apparatus which is able to find locations and routes to destinations for efficiently visiting a plurality of destinations with the minimum number of stops or the shortest overall distance.” (Yokota: Field of the Invention – 1st paragraph)
Xiang in view of Yokota does not teach but Young teaches:
a first plurality of maneuvers and a total path value; identifying a subset of maneuvers from the first plurality of maneuvers that are each associated with, (See (Young: Detailed Description – 50th, 54th, 59th, and 62nd paragraphs))
generating a modified total path value by applying the penalty value to each of the identified subset of maneuvers;, (See (Young: Detailed Description – 53rd-65th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiang in view of Yokota with these above aforementioned teachings from Young in order to create a safe and effective complex navigation maneuver reduction system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiang’s systems and methods for safe route planning for a vehicle with Young’s systems and methods for traffic control in order to determining a plurality of maneuvers for a vehicle to efficiently navigate from an origin to a destination. Combining Xiang and Young would thus provide “efficient and immediate techniques for identifying and controlling important or dangerous events that affect traffic at specific locations on roadways.” (Young: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 20:
Xiang in view of Yokota in further view of Young, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 19. Xiang further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the safety flag is associated with a complex maneuver type., (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 18th-22nd, 62nd-67th, 74th-81st, and 139th-142nd paragraphs, FIG. 4))
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on October 6th, 2025 with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed on October 6th, 2025 with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, claims 1, 10, and 19 recite receiving, determining, identifying, generating, and transmitting steps that as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Moreover, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Considering claims 1 and 19, the claims recite one additional element – a computing device. The computing device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a means to transmit and receive data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing device. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Considering claim 10, the claim recites three additional elements – a processor, a memory, and a computing device. All three elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor, memory, and computing device. Accordingly, the 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. (See 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above for further detail)
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the limitations are taught in Xiang and Yokota as has been set forth above, contrary to the Applicant’s assertions. Therefore, the Applicant’s amendments and arguments are insufficient to overcome these prior art rejections.
More specifically, Xiang mentions “As discussed above, […] described herein in FIGS. 1A-1B.” Furthermore, Xiang states “At times, […] and/or on a weighting assigned to a node or node type.” Xiang further states “As noted above, […] where different criteria may be given different weights in generating an alternative route.” Finally, Xiang mentions “FIG. 4 illustrates […] and the probability of an exception event occurring at the node.” See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 18th-22nd, 62nd-67th, 74th-81st, and 139th-142nd paragraphs, FIG. 4) In doing so, Xiang addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “a safety flag indicating maneuvers associated with unsafe driving conditions based on real-time traffic data, and a penalty value” and “that avoids maneuvers with the safety flag” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 10 and 19.
Moreover, Yokota mentions “The method of the present invention gives […] the user can accomplish the objective in the shortest distance.” Furthermore, Yokota states “Thus, in the present invention, […] that has the shortest drive length for visiting the specified multiple destinations.” Yokota further states “In the case where no one-stop location is found in the step 54, […] in the order specified by the user.” Finally, Yokota mentions “The navigation system finds […] shortest drive time in view of the traffic conditions, etc.” See (Yokota: Detailed Description of the Invention – 45th, 46th, 48th, 55th, and 64th paragraphs) In doing so, Yokota addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “determining a second shortest path from the origin location to the destination location” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 10 and 19.
As a result, the combination of Xiang and Yokota addresses "a safety flag indicating maneuvers associated with unsafe driving conditions based on real-time traffic data" and "determining a second shortest path from the origin location to the destination location that avoids the maneuvers with the safety flag" as set forth by the Applicant in claim 1 and similarly in claims 10 and 19.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3667
November 18, 2025