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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because at least reference characters 808 (“ship”) and 806 "aircraft" have both been used to designate the automobile in Fig. 7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1 and related claims: Please make edits to: “the a most optimized route”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Specifically, in limiting the “measuring unit” the claim recites a list of various data, parameters, and other information describing “inherent risks.” However, it is not clear which data, parameters, and other information describing “inherent risks” are recited in the alternative. There are too many uses of “and/or” and commas to enable a coherent understanding of what is being positively recited or merely recited in the alternative only. The incoherent part of the claim is annotated below in brackets. If each of these data, parameters, and other information is indeed recited in the alternative, applicant is encouraged to add “at least one of” after “based on” and list as follows:
statistical accident rate data and/or
real-time accident event data and/or
accident severity data and/or
accident related data corresponding to:
particular route sections,
weather condition parameters,
driving area parameters,
condition parameters of the routes at least comprising: (please fix this extra word too)
road composition data and/or
the age of the road segments and/or
the composition of the road surface, and/or
whether a given road segment includes texturing for the prevention of
hydroplaning and/or
whether a given road segment is susceptible to rain, snow or ice or the number of potholes cracks or other surface defects in a road segment,
number of intersections and/or traffic congestion parameters,
Examiner note: this incoherent list is further confusing due to the widely varying list of limitations: as narrow as “real time accident rate data” to as broad as whether a “road segment is susceptible to rain” (emphasized above; which would be any road surface on earth).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is further indefinite because the metes and bounds of “martin labelling process” is not clear. A search of G01C21 (i.e. navigation) for “martin$4 near5 label$4” produced 0 hits relevant to a martin labelling process other than applications related to the instant one. A search of the entire patents database produced 0 hits for martin$3 adj label$4 adj process. This term will be examined consistent with the context of the term in the specification with the term being recited a single time.
Claim 1 is indefinite because “the embedded routing interface unit” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. The claim does not previously recite that the “routing interface” is “embedded”.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by “wherein a spatial multistage grid by generating…”. It appears words are missing to provide clarity to this limitation.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by “one node each and along the route and…”. It appears words are missing to provide clarity to this limitation.
Claim 1 is indefinite because “the nominal route” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 1 is indefinite because “the optimal path” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 1 is indefinite because “the source” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the claim sets forth “derived traveling conditions” but it is not clear what these conditions are “derived” from.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by “the impacting accident events occurring temporal and spatial coincidentally at a forecasted location.” The accident events are previously recited as occurring along various routes. It appears the claim is reciting that the events (i.e more than one event?) occur at the same time and location relative to what? Explanation is needed to clarify the metes and bounds of this limitation. Fig. 7 does not help clarify what this limitation means.
PNG
media_image2.png
596
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is not clear whether the components recited therein are in duplicate to those previously set forth in claim 1 or separate therefrom including but not limited to: “a data acquisition unit.”
Claims 7 and 8 are indefinite because it is not clear whether the “automobile interface unit” is the same as or separate from the “embedded routing interface unit” or separate and apart therefrom.
Claim 9 is indefinite for similar reasons as described above for claim 1.
Applicant is encouraged to review claims that are commensurate in scope with the cited claims above for similar rejections. Examiner reserves the right to go final on any instances of non-compliance not expressly provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210164792 to Pal et al. “Pal”.
Regarding claim 1, Pal discloses a:
vehicle embedded or mobile-phone-based, automated dynamic routing unit associated with a vehicle and/or a user along a route traveled ([0031]),
the dynamic routing unit providing an optimized route between a departure location and a destination location ([0044] and [0052] defining “route”),
the automated dynamic routing unit comprising: processing circuitry ([0031]) configured to implement a routing interface ([0038]) for receiving destination input parameters of a destination location and/or departure location input parameters of a departure location (e.g. see [0021] and [0149]), and
wherein the automated dynamic routing unit comprises a routing generator for generating a plurality of routes between the departure location and the destination location (e.g. as shown in Figs. 2, 3 showing a plurality of routes),
a measuring unit dynamically measuring and forecasting for each of the generated routes time- and location dependent measured exposure values given by measured and forecasted time- and location dependent probability values quantitatively measuring the probability for occurrences of impacting accident events along the routes (e.g. see [0027], [0028], and [0132]),
the impacting accident events occurring temporal and spatial coincidentally at a forecasted location of the vehicle or user traveling along a route (e.g. see [0134], [0135]), and
the measuring unit measuring and forecasting said time- and location dependent probability values by processing measured route parameters associated with the generated routes and/or user-specific parameters (e.g. see [0134] – [0136]),
the measured route parameters comprising at least a-priori navigation risk parameters related inherent risks along a given route at least being based on [e.g. collision information] (as disclosed in [0075]); also see [0102] disclosing other alternative limitations);
wherein the automated dynamic routing unit comprises a data acquisition unit for continuously acquiring route and/or user-specific parameters along the routes by collecting measured telematics data via sensors embedded in a cellular smartphone or embedded in mobile telematics devices associated with the vehicle (e.g. see [0047]),
the sensors at least comprising a GPS sensor and accelerometer and gyroscope (e.g. see [0031]), and,
wherein the measuring unit provides an aggregated exposure score measure for each of the routes based on the measured time- and location dependent exposure values (e.g. see [0141]), and
a route selector for selecting the a most optimized route among the routes based on at least the time- and location dependent measured exposure values along each route and/or the aggregated exposure score measures of the routes (e.g. see [0049]), and
providing the selected optimized route as output on the embedded routing interface unit (e.g. see [0153]),
wherein the dynamic routing unit comprises a routing layer as data processing core (see Fig. 2),
wherein waypoints characterizing a route are generated based on a forecast and derived traveling conditions (as evident from Fig. 2, 3)
wherein a routing process is provided by a multicriteria path finding structure through a Martins labelling process (in as much as such is understood and disclosed in the specification, see, e.g. Figs. 2, 3A-F, and section 4.4 of the specification)
wherein a spatial multistage grid by generating a finite set of location nodes and a finite set of linking edges based on specified departure and arrival geographic locations (e.g. see Fig. 2, [0101]),
the departure and arrival geographic locations specifying one node each and along the route and adding new nodes for each stage (as evident from Figs. 2, 3)
wherein a perpendicular to the multistage grid is defined starting from the nominal route from the specified departure and arrival geographic locations and the multistage grid is composed by a finite number of stages where each node of one stage is connected to all the nodes in the next stage (as evident from Figs. 2, 3),
wherein a resulting spatial grid is cleaned of the edges and nodes where navigation is not allowed (as evident from Fig. 3A as resultant from Fig. 2 to the extent that navigation is not allowed on segments not part of the route); alternatively or additionally, see [0123]-[0129];
wherein to generate the optimal path between the source and destination locations, each edge is associated with an overall measure for navigating through a selected edge and a pareto front is generated (e.g. see Figs. 3A – F and [0106]), wherein a set of pareto efficient route solutions is generated through a routing process in a selected scenario (e.g. see Figs. 3A – F and [0106]), and wherein the pareto route solutions are dynamically grouped based on the navigation risk to select the optimized route by the route selector (e.g. see Figs. 3A – F and [0106] and [0132]).
Regarding claim 2, Pal discloses the automated dynamic routing unit according to claim 1, wherein the most optimized route is the route having a minimal measured aggregated exposure score value indicating the route with the lowest measured and forecasted probability for a physical impact to the vehicle and/or user caused by an occurring accident event (e.g. see [0149], [0134]).
Regarding claim 3, Pal discloses the automated dynamic routing unit according to claim 1, wherein, for selecting the most optimized route, the route selector comprises a trigger for selecting the most optimized route among the routes by using the values of the aggregated exposure score measure of the routes, wherein the most optimized route is triggered by the route having the smallest aggregated exposure score measure value, or by the route having the smallest maximum value of a time- and location dependent measured exposure values along each route (e.g. see [0149], [0134]).
Regarding claim 4, Pal discloses the automated dynamic routing unit according to claim 1, wherein, the measuring unit provides the aggregated exposure score measure for each of the routes by aggregation of the time- and location dependent exposure values along each route (e.g. see [0134]).
Regarding claim 5, Pal discloses the automated dynamic routing unit according to claim 1, wherein the automated dynamic routing unit comprises a data acquisition unit for continuously and dynamically acquiring and/or monitoring measured route parameters along the routes, wherein actual route parameters are, at least partially, measured by one or more measuring devices and/or sensors associated with the vehicle and/or the mobile device and/or the user and/or external contextual measuring systems associable with the routes (this claim as best understood is commensurate in scope with the limitations previously set forth in claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Pal discloses the automated dynamic routing unit of claim 1 and further comprises a route monitoring unit for continuously monitoring the route parameters along the routes to detect and measure changes in the measured values of the route parameters along the routes, wherein in response to changes in at least one of the route parameters, the route monitoring unit communicates the changes to the measuring unit, wherein the measuring unit dynamically re-determines one or more of the time- and location-dependent measured exposure values along one or more routes based on the changed route parameters and provide a dynamically updated aggregated exposure score measure for the routes concerned, wherein, in response to at least one of changed route parameters and the updated exposure score measures for each of the routes, the route selector determines a dynamically updated optimized route among the one or more routes (e.g. see [0147], [0148], [0149]).
Regarding claim 7, Pal discloses the automated dynamic routing unit of claim 1 further comprising an automobile interface unit to communicate at least one of a notification or control instructions to an automobile control unit to display the optimized route or an updated optimized route (e.g. see [0153]).
Regarding claim 8, Pal discloses the automated dynamic routing unit of claim 1 further further comprises an automobile interface unit to communicate at least one of a control instructions or the optimized route to an automobile control unit (e.g. see [0153], also see e.g. [0031], [0040]),
the automobile control unit being connected to or comprising an Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) or an autonomous driving system of the vehicle, wherein the optimized route is automatically chosen to be driven by the autonomous driving system or upon selection by the user (e.g. see [0023], [0037], [0049].
Claim 9 is commensurate in scope with claim 1 and is rejected using the same rationale and support.
Claim 10 is commensurate in scope with claim 3 and is rejected using the same rationale and support.
Claim 11 is commensurate in scope with claim 5 and is rejected using the same rationale and support.
Claim 12 is commensurate in scope with claim 6 and is rejected using the same rationale and support.
Claim 13 is commensurate in scope with claims 5 and/or 6 and is rejected using the same rationale and support.
Claim 14 is commensurate in scope with claims 7 and 8 and is rejected using the same rationale and support.
Response to Arguments
Arguments dated 11/12/25 have been received. As set forth above, the claims as a whole are largely incoherent consistent with the numerous rejections under 35 USC 112(b). Examiner recommends reviewing the claims and making amendments as appropriate to meet the minimal threshold of compliance with 35 USC 112.
Examiner telephoned applicant’s representative on July 10th leaving a message explaining such but no reply has been received.
Examiner observes the lack of connectivity between various clauses of at least claim 1. For example, the dynamic route unit comprises a routing layer…is entirely isolated from the rest of the claim. There is nothing in this clause that relates back to any previously recited limitations.
Applicant’s representative cites 3 bullets as distinguishing over Hassib. First is the clause referenced above. The next 2 bullets have numerous incoherent phrases and limitations that question whether they were reviewed with due diligence. See the above rejections under 35 USC 112(b) for details. Furthermore, Applicant inexplicably presents the arguments inconsistent with their present amended form. The following is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the content that follows “the dynamic routing unit comprises” : a segmented (i.e. more than one stages) 2D layering with (i) waypoints based on a “forecast” (“derived traveling conditions” would be equivalent to a forecast), (ii) location points (nodes) and connections between them (i.e. linked edges) (being “based on” departure and arrival locations each being a node themselves); a “perpendicular” to the segmented layer; and connections between location points are removed therein defining another (i.e. “resulting”) spatial grid.
In any event, examiner presents new art in the form of Pal as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A BROWNE whose telephone number is (571)270-0151. The examiner can normally be reached on Variable Workweek/IFP.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s colleague, SPE Hitesh Patel can be reached on (571) 270-5442. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights