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, 4-10, 13-19, and 21-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 09/04/2026.
This action is made FINAL in response to the RCE filed by the Applicant on 05/19/2026.
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, 4-10, 13-19, and 21-25 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 4-9 and 21-25 are also directed towards a method (process). Claim 10 is directed towards a system (machine). Dependent claims 13-18 are also directed towards a system (machine). Finally, claim 19 is 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 predicting, using a statistical model, a likelihood that a subset of navigation maneuvers of a plurality of navigation maneuvers for navigation of a vehicle will each be associated with negative user feedback, based on historical negative user feedback data indicating navigation maneuvers that are unsafe or difficult, categorizing each navigation maneuver of the subset of navigation maneuvers as a complex maneuver, receiving a transportation request comprising an origin location and a destination location, determining a first path from the origin location to the destination location, the first path comprising a first plurality of maneuvers and a total path value, and based on determining that at least one of the origin location or the destination location corresponds to a specified location parameter, reducing a number of complex maneuvers by performing operations comprising: identifying a subset of maneuvers from the first plurality of maneuvers for the first path that are categorized as complex maneuvers; determining a penalty value for each of the subset of maneuvers based on a type of complex maneuver for which each maneuver is categorized; recalculating the total path value of the first path by applying a respective penalty value to each maneuver of the subset of maneuvers to generate a modified total path value for the first path; determining whether the modified total path value of the first path exceeds a threshold value; in response to the modified total path value of the first path exceeding the threshold value, indicating that the first path comprises too many complex maneuvers, determining a second path from the origin location to the destination location that comprises fewer complex maneuvers based on the respective penalty value of each maneuver of the subset of maneuvers of the first path; generating navigation instructions comprising a second plurality of maneuvers associated with the second path with reduced complex maneuvers; and transmitting, in real time or near real time from receiving the transportation request, the navigation instructions, with a notification that the navigation instructions contain fewer complex maneuvers, to a computing device corresponding to a vehicle. 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, identifying a safer alternative route, and optimizing the vehicle’s path by providing driving instructions to a driver of the vehicle to traverse the alternative route in order to avoid any potentially dangerous circumstance. 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 four additional elements – a processor, a memory, a system, and a computing device. All four 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, system, 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, 4-10, 13-19, and 21-25 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, a system and a computing device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor, memory, system, and computing device. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a processor, a memory, a system, 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 4-9 and 21-25, and 13-18 and are merely field of use limitations which simply further limit the abstract idea set forth in claims 1 and 10, respectively. These claims do not contain further limitations that make them subject matter eligible.
For example, dependent claim 21 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, 4-10, 13-19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0208998 A1) in view of Kracun (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0364307 A1) in further view of Young (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0085192 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Xiang teaches:
A method for, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 186th paragraph))
receiving a transportation request comprising an origin location and a destination location; determining a first path from the origin location to the destination location, the first path comprising, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 43rd-45th paragraphs))
determining a penalty value for each of the subset of maneuvers based on a type of complex maneuver for which each maneuver is categorized;, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 18th-22nd, 62nd-67th, 74th-81st, and 139th-142nd paragraphs, FIG. 4))
determining whether the modified total path value of the first path exceeds a threshold value; in response to the modified total path value of the first path exceeding the threshold value, indicating that the first path comprises too many complex maneuvers, determining a second path from the origin location to the destination location that comprises fewer complex maneuvers based on the respective penalty value of each maneuver of the subset of maneuvers of the first path; generating navigation instructions comprising a second plurality of maneuvers associated with the second path with reduced complex maneuvers; and transmitting, in real time or near real time from receiving the transportation request, the navigation instructions, with a notification that the navigation instructions contain fewer complex maneuvers, to a computing device corresponding to a vehicle., (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 43rd-45th, 63rd-67th, 69th-81st, 85th-89th, 184th, and 203rd-204th paragraphs))
Xiang does not teach but Kracun teaches:
generating navigation instructions with a reduced number of complex maneuvers, comprising: predicting, using a statistical model, a likelihood that a subset of navigation maneuvers of a plurality of navigation maneuvers for navigation of a vehicle will each be associated with negative user feedback, based on historical negative user feedback data indicating navigation maneuvers that are unsafe or difficult; categorizing each navigation maneuver of the subset of navigation maneuvers as a complex maneuver;, (See (Kracun: Detailed Description – 40th-46th, 69th-70th, 80th-85th, and 101st-109th paragraphs))
reducing a number of complex maneuvers by performing operations comprising: identifying a subset of maneuvers from the first plurality of maneuvers for the first path that are categorized as complex maneuvers;, (See (Kracun: Detailed Description – 40th-54th and 82nd 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 Kracun in order to create a safe 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 Kracun’s system for providing additional instructions for difficult maneuvers during navigation in order to generate navigation instructions with a reduced number of complex maneuvers including: predicting, using a statistical model, a likelihood that a plurality of navigation maneuvers of a vehicle will each be associated with negative feedback based on historical negative user feedback data indicating navigation maneuvers that are unsafe or difficult and categorizing each navigation maneuver as a complex maneuver. Combining Xiang and Kracun would thus provide a safe complex navigation maneuver reduction system for “generating navigation instructions and, more particularly, to determining the difficulty of a maneuver and adjusting one or more parameters of a navigation instruction related to the maneuver in view of the determined difficulty.” (Kracun: Field of the Disclosure – 1st paragraph)
Xiang in view of Kracun does not teach but Young teaches:
a first plurality of maneuvers and a total path value; and based on determining that at least one of the origin location or the destination location corresponds to a specified location parameter,, (See (Young: Detailed Description – 50th, 54th-59th, and 62nd paragraphs))
recalculating the total path value of the first path by applying a respective penalty value to each maneuver of the subset of maneuvers to generate a modified total path value for the first path;, (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 Kracun with these above aforementioned teachings from Young in order to create an 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 determine a path from an origin location to a destination location including maneuvers and a total path value and recalculate the total path value by applying a respective penalty value to each maneuver of the maneuvers to generate a modified total path value. 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 4:
Xiang in view of Kracun in further view of Young teaches, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Xiang further teaches:
The method of claim 1, 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 Kracun teaches:
[…] a difficulty of a maneuver., (See (Kracun: Detailed Description – 40th-46th, 54th, and 82nd 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 Kracun in order to create a safe 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 Kracun’s system for providing additional instructions for difficult maneuvers during navigation in order to generate navigation instructions with a reduced number of complex maneuvers including: predicting, using a statistical model, a likelihood that a plurality of navigation maneuvers of a vehicle will each be associated with negative feedback based on historical negative user feedback data indicating navigation maneuvers that are unsafe or difficult and categorizing each navigation maneuver as a complex maneuver. Combining Xiang and Kracun would thus provide a safe complex navigation maneuver reduction system for “generating navigation instructions and, more particularly, to determining the difficulty of a maneuver and adjusting one or more parameters of a navigation instruction related to the maneuver in view of the determined difficulty.” (Kracun: Field of the Disclosure – 1st paragraph)
Regarding Claim 5:
Xiang in view of Kracun in further view of Young teaches, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Xiang further teaches:
The method of claim 4, 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 specified location parameter., (See (Young: Detailed Description – 50th, 54th-59th, and 62nd 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 an 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 determine a path from an origin location to a destination location including maneuvers and a total path value and recalculate the total path value by applying a respective penalty value to each maneuver of the maneuvers to generate a modified total path value. 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 Kracun in further view of Young teaches, 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 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 an 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 determine a path from an origin location to a destination location including maneuvers and a total path value and recalculate the total path value by applying a respective penalty value to each maneuver of the maneuvers to generate a modified total path value. 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 Kracun in further view of Young teaches, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Xiang does not teach but Kracun teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the statistical model is trained on historical user feedback data., (See (Kracun: Detailed Description – 40th-46th, 69th-70th, 80th-85th, and 101st-109th 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 Kracun in order to create a safe 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 Kracun’s system for providing additional instructions for difficult maneuvers during navigation in order to generate navigation instructions with a reduced number of complex maneuvers including: predicting, using a statistical model, a likelihood that a plurality of navigation maneuvers of a vehicle will each be associated with negative feedback based on historical negative user feedback data indicating navigation maneuvers that are unsafe or difficult and categorizing each navigation maneuver as a complex maneuver. Combining Xiang and Kracun would thus provide a safe complex navigation maneuver reduction system for “generating navigation instructions and, more particularly, to determining the difficulty of a maneuver and adjusting one or more parameters of a navigation instruction related to the maneuver in view of the determined difficulty.” (Kracun: Field of the Disclosure – 1st paragraph)
Regarding Claim 8:
Xiang in view of Kracun in further view of Young teaches, 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 an 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 determine a path from an origin location to a destination location including maneuvers and a total path value and recalculate the total path value by applying a respective penalty value to each maneuver of the maneuvers to generate a modified total path value. 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 Kracun in further view of Young teaches, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Xiang further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the 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:, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 187th and 192nd paragraphs))
receiving a transportation request comprising an origin location and a destination location; determining a first path from the origin location to the destination location, the first path comprising, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 43rd-45th paragraphs))
determining a penalty value for each of the subset of maneuvers based on a type of complex maneuver for which each maneuver is categorized;, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 18th-22nd, 62nd-67th, 74th-81st, and 139th-142nd paragraphs, FIG. 4))
determining whether the modified total path value of the first path exceeds a threshold value; in response to the modified total path value of the first path exceeding the threshold value, indicating that the first path comprises too many complex maneuvers, determining a second path from the origin location to the destination location that comprises fewer complex maneuvers based on the respective penalty value of each maneuver of the subset of maneuvers of the first path; generating navigation instructions comprising a second plurality of maneuvers associated with the second path with reduced complex maneuvers; and transmitting, in real time or near real time from receiving the transportation request, the navigation instructions, with a notification that the navigation instructions contain fewer complex maneuvers, to a computing device corresponding to a vehicle., (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 43rd-45th, 63rd-67th, 69th-81st, 85th-89th, 184th, and 203rd-204th paragraphs))
Xiang does not teach but Kracun teaches:
predicting, using a statistical model, a likelihood that a subset of navigation maneuvers of a plurality of navigation maneuvers for navigation of a vehicle will each be associated with negative user feedback, based on historical negative user feedback data indicating navigation maneuvers that are unsafe or difficult; categorizing each navigation maneuver of the subset of navigation maneuvers as a complex maneuver;, (See (Kracun: Detailed Description – 40th-46th, 69th-70th, 80th-85th, and 101st-109th paragraphs))
reducing a number of complex maneuvers by performing operations comprising: identifying a subset of maneuvers from the first plurality of maneuvers for the first path that are categorized as complex maneuvers;, (See (Kracun: Detailed Description – 40th-54th and 82nd 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 Kracun in order to create a safe 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 Kracun’s system for providing additional instructions for difficult maneuvers during navigation in order to generate navigation instructions with a reduced number of complex maneuvers including: predicting, using a statistical model, a likelihood that a plurality of navigation maneuvers of a vehicle will each be associated with negative feedback based on historical negative user feedback data indicating navigation maneuvers that are unsafe or difficult and categorizing each navigation maneuver as a complex maneuver. Combining Xiang and Kracun would thus provide a safe complex navigation maneuver reduction system for “generating navigation instructions and, more particularly, to determining the difficulty of a maneuver and adjusting one or more parameters of a navigation instruction related to the maneuver in view of the determined difficulty.” (Kracun: Field of the Disclosure – 1st paragraph)
Xiang in view of Kracun does not teach but Young teaches:
a first plurality of maneuvers and a total path value; and based on determining that at least one of the origin location or the destination location corresponds to a specified location parameter,, (See (Young: Detailed Description – 50th, 54th-59th, and 62nd paragraphs))
recalculating the total path value of the first path by applying a respective penalty value to each maneuver of the subset of maneuvers to generate a modified total path value for the first path;, (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 Kracun with these above aforementioned teachings from Young in order to create an 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 determine a path from an origin location to a destination location including maneuvers and a total path value and recalculate the total path value by applying a respective penalty value to each maneuver of the maneuvers to generate a modified total path value. 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 13:
Xiang in view of Kracun in further view of Young teaches, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Xiang further teaches:
The system of claim 10, 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 Kracun teaches:
[…] a difficulty of a maneuver., (See (Kracun: Detailed Description – 40th-46th, 54th, and 82nd 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 Kracun in order to create a safe 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 Kracun’s system for providing additional instructions for difficult maneuvers during navigation in order to generate navigation instructions with a reduced number of complex maneuvers including: predicting, using a statistical model, a likelihood that a plurality of navigation maneuvers of a vehicle will each be associated with negative feedback based on historical negative user feedback data indicating navigation maneuvers that are unsafe or difficult and categorizing each navigation maneuver as a complex maneuver. Combining Xiang and Kracun would thus provide a safe complex navigation maneuver reduction system for “generating navigation instructions and, more particularly, to determining the difficulty of a maneuver and adjusting one or more parameters of a navigation instruction related to the maneuver in view of the determined difficulty.” (Kracun: Field of the Disclosure – 1st paragraph)
Regarding Claim 14:
Xiang in view of Kracun in further view of Young teaches, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 13. Xiang further teaches:
The system of claim 13, 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 specified location parameter., (See (Young: Detailed Description – 50th, 54th-59th, and 62nd 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 an 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 determine a path from an origin location to a destination location including maneuvers and a total path value and recalculate the total path value by applying a respective penalty value to each maneuver of the maneuvers to generate a modified total path value. 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 Kracun in further view of Young teaches, 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 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 an 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 determine a path from an origin location to a destination location including maneuvers and a total path value and recalculate the total path value by applying a respective penalty value to each maneuver of the maneuvers to generate a modified total path value. 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 Kracun in further view of Young teaches, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Xiang does not teach but Kracun teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein the statistical model is trained on historical user feedback data., (See (Kracun: Detailed Description – 40th-46th, 69th-70th, 80th-85th, and 101st-109th 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 Kracun in order to create a safe 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 Kracun’s system for providing additional instructions for difficult maneuvers during navigation in order to generate navigation instructions with a reduced number of complex maneuvers including: predicting, using a statistical model, a likelihood that a plurality of navigation maneuvers of a vehicle will each be associated with negative feedback based on historical negative user feedback data indicating navigation maneuvers that are unsafe or difficult and categorizing each navigation maneuver as a complex maneuver. Combining Xiang and Kracun would thus provide a safe complex navigation maneuver reduction system for “generating navigation instructions and, more particularly, to determining the difficulty of a maneuver and adjusting one or more parameters of a navigation instruction related to the maneuver in view of the determined difficulty.” (Kracun: Field of the Disclosure – 1st paragraph)
Regarding Claim 17:
Xiang in view of Kracun in further view of Young teaches, 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 an 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 determine a path from an origin location to a destination location including maneuvers and a total path value and recalculate the total path value by applying a respective penalty value to each maneuver of the maneuvers to generate a modified total path value. 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 Kracun in further view of Young teaches, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Xiang further teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein the 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 non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations comprising:, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 188th paragraph))
receiving a transportation request comprising an origin location and a destination location; determining a first path from the origin location to the destination location, the first path comprising, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 43rd-45th paragraphs))
determining a penalty value for each of the subset of maneuvers based on a type of complex maneuver for which each maneuver is categorized;, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 18th-22nd, 62nd-67th, 74th-81st, and 139th-142nd paragraphs, FIG. 4))
determining whether the modified total path value of the first path exceeds a threshold value; in response to the modified total path value of the first path exceeding the threshold value, indicating that the first path comprises too many complex maneuvers, determining a second path from the origin location to the destination location that comprises fewer complex maneuvers based on the respective penalty value of each maneuver of the subset of maneuvers of the first path; generating navigation instructions comprising a second plurality of maneuvers associated with the second path with reduced complex maneuvers; and transmitting, in real time or near real time from receiving the transportation request, the navigation instructions, with a notification that the navigation instructions contain fewer complex maneuvers, to a computing device corresponding to a vehicle., (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 43rd-45th, 63rd-67th, 69th-81st, 85th-89th, 184th, and 203rd-204th paragraphs))
Xiang does not teach but Kracun teaches:
predicting, using a statistical model, a likelihood that a subset of navigation maneuvers of a plurality of navigation maneuvers for navigation of a vehicle will each be associated with negative user feedback, based on historical negative user feedback data indicating navigation maneuvers that are unsafe or difficult; categorizing each navigation maneuver of the subset of navigation maneuvers as a complex maneuver;, (See (Kracun: Detailed Description – 40th-46th, 69th-70th, 80th-85th, and 101st-109th paragraphs))
reducing a number of complex maneuvers by performing operations comprising: identifying a subset of maneuvers from the first plurality of maneuvers for the first path that are categorized as complex maneuvers;, (See (Kracun: Detailed Description – 40th-54th and 82nd 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 Kracun in order to create a safe 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 Kracun’s system for providing additional instructions for difficult maneuvers during navigation in order to generate navigation instructions with a reduced number of complex maneuvers including: predicting, using a statistical model, a likelihood that a plurality of navigation maneuvers of a vehicle will each be associated with negative feedback based on historical negative user feedback data indicating navigation maneuvers that are unsafe or difficult and categorizing each navigation maneuver as a complex maneuver. Combining Xiang and Kracun would thus provide a safe complex navigation maneuver reduction system for “generating navigation instructions and, more particularly, to determining the difficulty of a maneuver and adjusting one or more parameters of a navigation instruction related to the maneuver in view of the determined difficulty.” (Kracun: Field of the Disclosure – 1st paragraph)
Xiang in view of Kracun does not teach but Young teaches:
a first plurality of maneuvers and a total path value; and based on determining that at least one of the origin location or the destination location corresponds to a specified location parameter,, (See (Young: Detailed Description – 50th, 54th-59th, and 62nd paragraphs))
recalculating the total path value of the first path by applying a respective penalty value to each maneuver of the subset of maneuvers to generate a modified total path value for the first path;, (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 Kracun with these above aforementioned teachings from Young in order to create an 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 determine a path from an origin location to a destination location including maneuvers and a total path value and recalculate the total path value by applying a respective penalty value to each maneuver of the maneuvers to generate a modified total path value. 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 25:
Xiang in view of Kracun in further view of Young teaches, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Xiang further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the penalty value is further based on, (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 18th-22nd, 62nd-67th, 74th-81st, and 139th-142nd paragraphs, FIG. 4))
[…] one or more of a road class, a distance, or a time., (See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 80th-89th paragraphs))
Comment on the Closest Prior Art References
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but would be allowable if the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is overcome.
The allowable subject matter in claim 21 includes recalculating a total path value of a first path including modifying each weight of each traversed edge corresponding to a complex maneuver with the respective penalty value and recalculating a sum of weights of traversed edges in the first path after modifying the weights of each traversed edge corresponding to a complex maneuver.
The allowable subject matter in claim 22 includes traversed edges included in a weighted graph.
The allowable subject matter in claim 23 includes the weighted graph representing the first path from the origin location to the destination location.
The allowable subject matter in claim 24 includes edges corresponding to roadways in the weighted graph.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 4th, 2026 with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 4th, 2026 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 predicting, categorizing, receiving, determining, and reducing 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. 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 four additional elements – a processor, a memory, a system, and a computing device. All four 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, system, 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 the combination of Kracun, Young, and Xiang 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, See (Kracun: Detailed Description – 40th-46th, 69th-70th, 80th-85th, and 101st-109th paragraphs) and See (Kracun: Detailed Description – 40th-54th and 82nd paragraphs). In doing so, Kracun addresses the Applicant’s limitations of “generating navigation instructions with a reduced number of complex maneuvers, comprising: predicting, using a statistical model, a likelihood that a subset of navigation maneuvers of a plurality of navigation maneuvers for navigation of a vehicle will each be associated with negative user feedback, based on historical negative user feedback data indicating navigation maneuvers that are unsafe or difficult; categorizing each navigation maneuver of the subset of navigation maneuvers as a complex maneuver” and “reducing a number of complex maneuvers by performing operations comprising: identifying a subset of maneuvers from the first plurality of maneuvers for the first path that are categorized as complex maneuvers” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 10 and 19.
Moreover, See (Young: Detailed Description – 50th, 54th-59th, and 62nd paragraphs) and See (Young: Detailed Description – 53rd-65th paragraphs). In doing so, Young addresses the Applicant’s limitations of “a first plurality of maneuvers and a total path value; and based on determining that at least one of the origin location or the destination location corresponds to a specified location parameter” and “recalculating the total path value of the first path by applying a respective penalty value to each maneuver of the subset of maneuvers to generate a modified total path value for the first path” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 10 and 19.
Finally, See (Xiang: Detailed Description – 43rd-45th, 63rd-67th, 69th-81st, 85th-89th, 184th, and 203rd-204th paragraphs). In doing so, Xiang addresses the Applicant’s limitations of “determining whether the modified total path value of the first path exceeds a threshold value; in response to the modified total path value of the first path exceeding the threshold value, indicating that the first path comprises too many complex maneuvers, determining a second path from the origin location to the destination location that comprises fewer complex maneuvers based on the respective penalty value of each maneuver of the subset of maneuvers of the first path; generating navigation instructions comprising a second plurality of maneuvers associated with the second path with reduced complex maneuvers; and transmitting, in real time or near real time from receiving the transportation request, the navigation instructions, with a notification that the navigation instructions contain fewer complex maneuvers, to a computing device corresponding to a vehicle” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 10 and 19.
As a result, the combination of Kracun, Young, and Xiang addresses (a) “predicting, using a statistical model, a likelihood that a subset of navigation maneuvers of a plurality of navigation maneuvers for navigation of a vehicle will each be associated with negative user feedback, based on historical negative user feedback data indicating navigation maneuvers that are unsafe or difficult” and “categorizing each navigation maneuver of the subset of navigation maneuvers as a complex maneuver”, (b) “based on determining that at least one of the origin location or the destination location corresponds to a specified location parameter, reducing a number of complex maneuvers by performing operations comprising”, (c) “recalculating the total path value of the first path by applying a respective penalty value to each maneuver of the subset of maneuvers to generate a modified total path value for the first path”, (d) “determining whether the modified total path value of the first path exceeds a threshold value” and “in response to the modified total path value of the first path exceeding the threshold value, indicating that the first path comprises too many complex maneuvers, determining a second path from the origin location to the destination location that comprises fewer complex maneuvers based on the respective penalty value of each maneuver of the subset of maneuvers of the first path”, and (e) “transmitting, in real time or near real time from receiving the transportation request, the navigation instructions, with a notification that the navigation instructions contain fewer complex maneuvers, to a computing device corresponding to a vehicle” 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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights