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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouad et al (U.S. 2021/0339759) and further in view of Klenk et al (U.S. 2020/0005638).
1. As per claims 1,12,17 Fouad disclosed a method comprising:
collecting sensor data from one or more in-vehicle sensors of a vehicle; processing the sensor data to determine one or more contextual parameter signals associated with the vehicle [Other in-vehicle sensors can include a microphone for collecting voice data or audio data, and sensors to collect physiological data. Data relating to the vehicle can also be collected. Additional sensors can be used to collect data outside the vehicle, including image sensors, radar sensors, weather sensors, light sensors, and so on. The cognitive state data is collected from the operator or passenger of a vehicle] (Paragraph. 0015), one or more passengers of the vehicle, or a combination thereof, wherein the one or more contextual parameter signals include a weight of the one or more passengers [A vehicle travel route can include one or more segments. The mapping of the cognitive state data can be based on cognitive state data collected from the driver or operator of a vehicle, from passengers in the vehicle, from occupants of other vehicles, and so on] (Paragraph. 0047); determining a context associated with a trip engaged by the vehicle or the one or more passengers based on the one or more contextual parameter signals [The vehicle route mood map can enable vehicle route planning. In a usage example, a driver cognitive state of sadness can indicate that planning a beautiful vehicle travel route would be recommended. The route planning can include avoiding stressful areas when the vehicle occupant's cognitive state is one of stress. The route planning can include planning for other criteria or factors such as shortest route, least traffic, accident site avoidance, and the like. In embodiments, the vehicle route mood map can enable planning for routes to avoid road construction or to navigate road rearrangement, and so on. The vehicle route mood map can support other information updating. In embodiments, the vehicle route mood map can enable vehicle route redeployment. The vehicle route can be changed, updated, rerouted, redeployed, etc., based on a changed cognitive state of the vehicle driver, a traffic accident, changing weather conditions, etc] (Paragraph. 0050);
determining a routing cost factor based on the context;
determining, by a routing engine configured to access a geographic database a navigation route (Paragraph. 0054), navigation guidance information, or a combination thereof based on the routing cost factor [the navigation app can include Waze™, Google Maps™, or Apple Maps™. The rendering of information that was updated can also be based on other factors, parameters, thresholds, and so on. In embodiments, the information that was updated can include an emotion metric 214 for one or more segments of the vehicle travel route. An emotion metric can be used to determine one or more emotions, an intensity of an emotion, a duration of an emotion, and so on. The emotions can include happiness, sadness, anger, boredom, and so on. In embodiments, the emotion metric can be based on the analysis of the images of the vehicle occupant] (Paragraph. 0056); and
However, Foaud did not disclose in detail providing the navigation route, the navigation guidance information, or a combination thereof as an output to execute the navigation route or the navigation guidance information.
In the same field of endeavor Klenk disclosed, “the transportation planning system 100 may operate using hardware resources of the user device 160. In some embodiments, the transportation planning system 100 can operate on a host server separate from the user device. Upon receiving a selected transportation plan, the user device 160 can provide a user interface to the user. The user device then receives an indication of whether to proceed with the recommended transportation plan. In some embodiments, the user device 160 can then provide the transportation plan to a navigation system 165 and follow directions on the user device 160. In some embodiments, if the user does not accept the proposed route, the transportation planning system 100 can provide alternative or other routes to the user device. In some embodiments, the user device 160 may revert to another navigation system 165 in response to declining the selected transportation plan (Paragraph. 0030). While some systems can provide optimized routes for individuals, those recommendations can make transportation systems within a particular region less efficient for overall time of those using it as well as consume more energy as a whole (Paragraph. 0011).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated the transportation planning system 100 may operate using hardware resources of the user device 160. In some embodiments, the transportation planning system 100 can operate on a host server separate from the user device. Upon receiving a selected transportation plan, the user device 160 can provide a user interface to the user. The user device then receives an indication of whether to proceed with the recommended transportation plan. In some embodiments, the user device 160 can then provide the transportation plan to a navigation system 165 and follow directions on the user device 160. In some embodiments, if the user does not accept the proposed route, the transportation planning system 100 can provide alternative or other routes to the user device. In some embodiments, the user device 160 may revert to another navigation system 165 in response to declining the selected transportation plan. While some systems can provide optimized routes for individuals, those recommendations can make transportation systems within a particular region less efficient for overall time of those using it as well as consume more energy as a whole as taught by Klenk in the method and system of Fouad to optimize the routing plans based on user preferences.
2. As per claims 2,13,18 Fouad-Klenk disclosed wherein the routing cost factor includes an efficiency factor, a resilience factor, a reliability factor, a simplicity of route factor, a safety factor, a point of interest discovery factor, or a combination thereof (Klenk, Paragraph. 0012-0013). Claims 2,13 and 18 have the same motivation as to claim 1.
3. As per claim 3 Fouad-Klenk disclosed wherein the efficiency factor
relates to a power or fuel consumption of the vehicle, a carbon footprint of the vehicle, or a combination thereof (Klenk, Paragraph. 0016). Claim 3 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
4. As per claim 4 Fouad-Klenk disclosed wherein the resilience factor relates to an availability of one or more back-up routes in case of traffic congestion or an accident (Fouad, Paragraph. 0012).
5. As per claim 5 Fouad-Klenk disclosed wherein the reliability factor relates to an ability to reach a destination via a selected route given a current power or fuel level of the vehicle (Klenk, Paragraph. 0027). Claim 5 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
6. As per claim 6 Fouad-Klenk disclosed wherein the simplicity of route factor relates to a number of road type changes, complex maneuvers, routing decision points, or a combination thereof (Fouad, Paragraph. 0038).
7. As per claim 7 Fouad-Klenk disclosed wherein the safety factor relates to a number of vulnerable road users expected to be encountered (Fouad, Paragraph. 0039).
8. As per claim 8 Fouad-Klenk disclosed wherein the point of interest discovery factor relates to a number of points of interest expected to be encountered, and wherein the points of interest expected to be encountered relates to at least one designated interest of the one or more passengers (Fouad, Paragraph. 0096).
9. As per claims 9,14,19 Fouad-Klenk disclosed wherein the one or more contextual parameter signals include a number of the one or more passengers, a weight of the one or more passengers, an age of the one or more passengers, a time of day, or a combination thereof (Fouad, Paragraph. 0130).
10. As per claims 10,15,20 Fouad-Klenk disclosed further comprising: determining a previous destination, a previous context, or a combination associated with the one or more contextual parameter signals, wherein the routing cost factor is further based on the previous destination, the previous context, or a combination thereof (Fouad, Paragraph. 0015).
11. As per claims 11,16 Fouad-Klenk disclosed wherein the navigation route, the navigation guidance information, or a combination thereof is determined further based on one or more multi-task stop options (Klenk, Paragraph. 0030). Claims 11 and 16 have the same motivation as to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
12. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 12 is directed to an apparatus and claim 17 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Therefore, claims 1, 12 and 17 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 12 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
collecting sensor data from one or more in-vehicle sensors of a vehicle; processing the sensor data to determine one or more contextual parameter signals associated with the vehicle, one or more passengers of the vehicle, or a combination thereof, wherein the one or more contextual parameter signals include a weight of the one or more passengers,
determining a context associated with a trip engaged by the vehicle or the one or more passengers based on the one or more contextual parameter signals;
determining a routing cost factor based on the context; determining by a routing engine configured to access a geographic database a navigation route a navigation route, navigation guidance information, or a combination thereof based on the routing cost factor; and providing the navigation route, the navigation guidance information, or a combination thereof as an output to execute the navigation route or the navigation guidance information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining …” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[Mental processes] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code for one or more programs, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform at least the following, collect sensor data from one or more in-vehicle sensors of a vehicle; process the sensor data to determine one or more contextual parameter signals associated with the vehicle, one or more passengers of the vehicle, or a combination thereof; wherein the one or more contextual parameter signals include a weight of the one or more passengers,
determine a context associated with a trip engaged by the vehicle or the one or more passengers based on the one or more contextual parameter signals; determine a routing cost factor based on the context; determine by a routing engine configured to access a geographic database a navigation route a navigation route, navigation guidance information, or a combination thereof based on the routing cost factor; and provide the navigation route, the navigation guidance information, or a combination thereof as an output to execute the navigation route or the navigation guidance information.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and casting steps from / using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and casting rays to detect information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The disqualifying, associating and sending steps are also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 12 and 17 further recite “An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code for one or more programs” and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium carrying one or more sequences of one or more instructions which, when executed by one or more processors” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “determining a context associated with a trip engaged by the vehicle or the one or more passengers based on the one or more contextual parameter signals; determining a routing cost factor based on the context; determining a navigation route, navigation guidance information” in claim 1 and “collect sensor data from one or more in-vehicle sensors of a vehicle” in claim 12 are not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “determining a navigation route, navigation guidance information, or a combination thereof based on the routing cost factor; and providing the navigation route, the navigation guidance information, or a combination thereof as an output” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “creating the first map …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performance which in the instant application is creating a map is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1,12 and 17.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Response to applicant’s argument is as follows.
Applicant argued that there is no motivation to combine the references.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Klenk in the method and system of Fouad to optimize the routing plans based on user preferences.
Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “one or more passengers of the vehicle, or a combination thereof, wherein the one or more contextual parameter signals include a weight of the one or more passengers”.
As to applicant’s argument Fouad disclosed, “A vehicle travel route can include one or more segments. The mapping of the cognitive state data can be based on cognitive state data collected from the driver or operator of a vehicle, from passengers in the vehicle, from occupants of other vehicles, and so on (Paragraph. 0047).
Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “by a routing engine configured to access a geographic database a navigation route”.
As to applicant’s argument Fouad disclosed, “The navigation app can execute on an on-board computing device, on an electronic device used by a vehicle occupant, etc. The navigation app can include a mapping app, a GPS app, a crowd-sourced traffic information app, and so on. In embodiments, the navigation app can include Waze™, Google Maps™, Apple Maps™, Garman™, TomTom™, MapQuest™ Karta™ CoPilot GPS™, or InRoute™. In other embodiments, the mapping is performed based on GPS data for the vehicle” (Paragraph. 0054).
Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “or a combination thereof as an output to execute the navigation route or the navigation guidance information”.
As to applicant’s argument Klenk disclosed, “the transportation planning system 100 may operate using hardware resources of the user device 160. In some embodiments, the transportation planning system 100 can operate on a host server separate from the user device. Upon receiving a selected transportation plan, the user device 160 can provide a user interface to the user. The user device then receives an indication of whether to proceed with the recommended transportation plan. In some embodiments, the user device 160 can then provide the transportation plan to a navigation system 165 and follow directions on the user device 160. In some embodiments, if the user does not accept the proposed route, the transportation planning system 100 can provide alternative or other routes to the user device. In some embodiments, the user device 160 may revert to another navigation system 165 in response to declining the selected transportation plan (Paragraph. 0030). While some systems can provide optimized routes for individuals, those recommendations can make transportation systems within a particular region less efficient for overall time of those using it as well as consume more energy as a whole (Paragraph. 0011).
Applicant argued that newly amended claims would overcome the 101- rejection.
As to applicant’s argument Step 2A prong (one and two) still applies to the claim and therefore 101 rejection stands rejected.
Conclusion
14. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
16. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
17. 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 un published 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).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667