DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This office action is in response to application number 18/468,095 filed on 09/15/2023, in which the amendments and arguments filed on 08/20/2025.
Claims 1-8, 11-15, and 17-18 has been amended.
Claims 21-23 have been added.
Claims 16 and 19-20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-8, 11-15, 17-18, and 21-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/15/2023 has been received
and considered.
Response to Amendment
4. Applicant' s amendments to the Claims have not overcome the rejection previously set
forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/02/2025. Applicants arguments, see page 16-18
filed on 08/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 are
persuasive. Furthermore, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 101 and
all objections have been persuasive. Therefore, a new grounds for rejection is made under 35
USC 103 as necessitated by amendment as being unpatentable over Ito (US 6427117 B1) in view of Roth (US 20210055120 A1) further in view of Beaurepaire (US 20210341300 A1) further in view of Verma (US 20220146272 A1) further in view of Morimoto (US 20090171566 A1) and further in view of Koponen (US 20230332898 A1).
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.
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.
5. Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 11, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 6427117 B1) to Ito et al. (hereinafter Ito) in view of Roth (US 20210055120 A1) and further in view of (US 20210341300 A1) to Beaurepaire et al. (hereinafter Beaurepaire).
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses A method comprising: (Ito Column 2, line number 50-51: “the present invention is directed to a navigation method”) determining, based on a signal from a position determining device, a first position of an object at a first time; (Ito Column 13, line number 11-14: “ identifying the vehicle on which the navigation apparatus 100 is mounted, and vehicle position data (Longitude, Latitude) 164 measured by a position measuring section 104.”) (Ito Column 13, line number 15-17: “The vehicle position data 164 includes a current position data measured by the position measuring section 104 at a predetermined time interval”) (Ito Column 13, line number 30-35: “The position measuring section 104 utilizes GPS and/or the like to measure the position of the vehicle. Namely, the position measuring section 104 is equipped with a GPS receiver to measure the absolute position of the vehicle on the basis of signals received from a plurality of GPS satellites.”) (Note: Because the transmission points are transmitted at different times the first point is PD according to the figure attached) detecting a loss or distortion of the signal from the position determining device at a second time subsequent to the first time; (Ito Column 13, line number 41-43: “GPS receiver is unable to receive signals from the GPS satellites (e.g., when the vehicle is running inside a tunnel or the like)”) (Ito Column 22, line number 13-17: “Namely, this invention makes it possible to transmit navigation data extracted from the newest navigation information to the moving body from the navigation center over the entire time the moving body is traveling to the destination (instead of carrying out such transmission only at the time of departure of the moving body toward the destination).”) (Ito Column 22, line number 29-33: “According to the present invention described above, the moving body can obtain from the navigation center the navigation data extracted from the newest navigation information each time when the moving body reaches the predetermined request transmission points.”) (Note: Because the transmission points are transmitted at different times the second period in time is the tunnel according to the figure attached. It is possible for the location in the tunnel to not be determined ) determining, based on the signal from the position determining device, a second position of the object at a third time subsequent to the second time; (Ito Column 11, line number 50-53: “a recommended route from a current position (the navigation starting point or the departure point) of the vehicle on which the navigation apparatus 100 is mounted to a destination (the navigation ending point)”) (Ito Column 13, line number 31-32: “The position measuring section 104 utilizes GPS and/or the like to measure the position of the vehicle.”) (Note: The second point of the object that carries the navigation apparatus is Destination “PA”)
PNG
media_image1.png
539
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ito does not disclose […] automatically simulating a plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; ranking, based on one or more criteria comprising at least a similarity to one or more past routes taken by the object, the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; estimating a most probable route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; and displaying the most probable route on one of an infotainment screen or mobile device.
However, Roth does teach […] automatically simulating a plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; (Roth Paragraph 0058: “The personal computing device 150 may output the plurality of routes”) […] estimating a most probable route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; (Roth Paragraph 0067: “The input may include user preferences for recommendation of an optimal route based on total cost, energy cost, time cost, energy consumed, fuel consumed, electricity consumed, or combination thereof.”) (Roth Paragraph 0069: “At 430, the method 400, using the personal computing device 150 and/or the infotainment system 160, may display information regarding the fuel consumption, electricity consumption, energy consumption, travel time, fuel cost, electricity cost, energy cost, time cost, and total cost for each of the plurality of routes to the user. Additionally, or alternatively, an optimal route may be recommended at 432 based on the user preferences.”) and displaying the most probable route on one of an infotainment screen or mobile device. (Roth Paragraph 0069: “At 428, the method 400, using the personal computing device 150, calculates the fuel cost, electricity cost, energy cost, time cost, and total cost of each of the plurality of optional routes. At 430, the method 400, using the personal computing device 150 and/or the infotainment system 160, may display information regarding the fuel consumption, electricity consumption, energy consumption, travel time, fuel cost, electricity cost, energy cost, time cost, and total cost for each of the plurality of routes to the user. Additionally, or alternatively, an optimal route may be recommended at 432 based on the user preferences.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito to include […] automatically simulating a plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; […] estimating a most probable route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; and displaying the most probable route on one of an infotainment screen or mobile device taught by Roth. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method for vehicle route selection. The method includes identifying a plurality of routes based on a current location or a starting location of a vehicle and a destination location. The method also includes determining an energy cost for each of the plurality of routes. [Roth Paragraph 0005]
Roth does not teach […] ranking, based on one or more criteria comprising at least a similarity to one or more past routes taken by the object, the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; […]
However, Beaurepaire does teach […] ranking, based on one or more criteria comprising at least a similarity to one or more past routes taken by the object, the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; (Beaurepaire Paragraph 0024: “Current navigation systems can provide route guidance (e.g., via a mobile device, an embedded navigation system, etc.) to enable a user to travel between locations (e.g., origin, destination, and/or waypoints)”) (Beaurepaire Paragraph 0025: “As part of providing route guidance, navigation systems compute and compare different possible routes or modes of transportation using a routing engine.”) (Beaurepaire Paragraph 0059: “In one embodiment, the system 100 ranks the user's historical routes based on all information and data corresponding to the respective routes being weighted evenly”) […]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Roth to include […] ranking, based on one or more criteria comprising at least a similarity to one or more past routes taken by the object, the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; […] taught by Beaurepaire. This would have been for the benefit to provide a comparative analysis of a navigation route comprises determining, by a processor, an optimal navigation route. The method also comprises determining a historical navigation route based on a similarity between the historical navigation route and the optimal navigation route. [Beaurepaire Paragraph 0003]
Regarding claim 2, Ito discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the position determining device is associated with the object, and wherein the object comprises a vehicle. (Ito Column 9, line number 38-40: “The navigation system according to the present invention includes at least one navigation apparatus (moving body) 100 which can be mounted on, for example, a vehicle”)
Regarding claim 5, Ito in view of Roth and further in view of Beaurepaire teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Ito does not teach The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria further comprises distance, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises computing the distance for each possible route of the plurality of possible routes.
However, Roth does teach The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria further comprises distance, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises computing the distance for each possible route of the plurality of possible routes. (Roth Paragraph 0058: “The personal computing device 150 may output the plurality of routes, including a travel distance, a travel time, a generated energy consumption, an energy cost, a time cost, and/or a total cost for each route of the plurality of routes. FIG. 3 generally illustrates a route selection interface 200 according to the principles of the present disclosure.”) (Roth Paragraph 0059: “The operator of the vehicle 10 may select a route from the plurality of routes.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito to include The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria further comprises distance, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises computing the distance for each possible route of the plurality of possible routes taught by Roth. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method for vehicle route selection. The method includes identifying a plurality of routes based on a current location or a starting location of a vehicle and a destination location. The method also includes determining an energy cost for each of the plurality of routes. [Roth Paragraph 0005]
Regarding claim 6, Ito in view of Roth and further in view of Beaurepaire teaches claim 5, accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated above.
Ito does not teach The method of claim 5, wherein estimating the most probable route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises identifying a possible route having a shortest distance as the most probable route.
However, Roth does teach The method of claim 5, wherein estimating the most probable route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises identifying a possible route having a shortest distance as the most probable route. (Roth Paragraph 0058: “The personal computing device 150 may output the plurality of routes, including a travel distance, a travel time, a generated energy consumption, an energy cost, a time cost, and/or a total cost for each route of the plurality of routes. FIG. 3 generally illustrates a route selection interface 200 according to the principles of the present disclosure.”) (Roth Paragraph 0059: “The operator of the vehicle 10 may select a route from the plurality of routes.”) (Roth Paragraph 0061: “For example, the operator may indicate, a preference for routes having a lower total cost, a lower energy cost, a lower time cost, a lower energy consumption, a shorter travel time, a shorter distance, or any combination thereof.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito to include The method of claim 5, wherein estimating the most probable route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises identifying a possible route having a shortest distance as the most probable route taught by Roth. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method for vehicle route selection. The method includes identifying a plurality of routes based on a current location or a starting location of a vehicle and a destination location. The method also includes determining an energy cost for each of the plurality of routes. [Roth Paragraph 0005]
Regarding claim 7, Ito discloses The method of claim 1, wherein a position of the object at the second time is not known between the first position of the object and the second position of the object. (Ito Column 18, line number 58-Column 19, line number 5: “In this example, if the requested road length is LR, then the addition of the segment S1 to the segment S2 makes the transmission road length greater than the requested road length LR. However, the navigation apparatus cannot transmit to the navigation center 10 a request for next route/guidance data, because the request transmission point of the segment S2 is located in the tunnel TN. Accordingly, the next segment S3 is added to the transmission road length. Then, because the terminal point of the segment S3 is not an unsuitable communications area, the added segments S1-S3 form the transmission road length, and route data and guidance data related thereto are extracted and transmitted to the navigation apparatus 100.”)
Regarding claim 8, Ito discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the position determining device is a global positioning system (GPS) sensor or a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) sensor. (Ito Column 12, line number 61-64: “Further, the navigation apparatus 100 is provided with a memory 102 having a program storing area 102A for storing various programs run by the processing section 101”) (Ito Column 13, line number 7-14: “The memory 102 also has a data storing area 102B which, in addition to serving as a work area utilized when running programs, stores various data, such as route/guidance data (navigation data) 160 transmitted from the navigation center 10, ID data 162 for identifying the vehicle on which the navigation apparatus 100 is mounted, and vehicle position data (Longitude, Latitude) 164 measured by a position measuring section 104.”) (Ito Column 13, line number 30-31: “The position measuring section 104 utilizes GPS and/or the like to measure the position of the vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 11, Ito discloses The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the most probable route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises estimating while the object is in motion. (Ito Column 1, line number 35-36: “Furthermore, the data transmission system carries out a route search to produce optimum route data”) (Ito Column 2, line number 51-65: “navigation method in which navigation data concerning a route from a current position of a moving body to a destination is transmitted from a navigation center to the moving body, and then route guidance is carried out at the moving body using the navigation data received from the navigation center, the method comprising the steps of: (a) updating navigation information which includes various information concerning routes, the navigation information being stored in memory means provided in the navigation center; (b) conducting a route search for setting a route from a current position of the moving body to a destination on the basis of the newest navigation information updated in the updating step (a);”) (Ito Column 3, line number 47-53: “Namely, this invention makes it possible to transmit navigation data extracted from the newest navigation information to the moving body from the navigation center over the entire time the moving body is traveling to the destination (instead of carrying out such transmission only at the time of departure of the moving body toward the destination)”)
Regarding claim 21, Ito discloses A system, comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor that includes instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: (Ito Column 5, line number 37-42: “route guidance is carried out at the moving body using the navigation data received from the navigation center, the system comprising: memory means provided in the navigation center for storing navigation information which includes various information concerning routes;”) determine, based on a signal from a position determining device, a first position of an object at a first time; (Ito Column 13, line number 11-14: “ identifying the vehicle on which the navigation apparatus 100 is mounted, and vehicle position data (Longitude, Latitude) 164 measured by a position measuring section 104.”) (Ito Column 13, line number 15-17: “The vehicle position data 164 includes a current position data measured by the position measuring section 104 at a predetermined time interval”) (Ito Column 13, line number 30-35: “The position measuring section 104 utilizes GPS and/or the like to measure the position of the vehicle. Namely, the position measuring section 104 is equipped with a GPS receiver to measure the absolute position of the vehicle on the basis of signals received from a plurality of GPS satellites.”) (Note: Because the transmission points are transmitted at different times the first point is PD according to the figure attached) detect a loss or distortion of the signal from the position determining device at a second time subsequent to the first time; (Ito Column 13, line number 41-43: “GPS receiver is unable to receive signals from the GPS satellites (e.g., when the vehicle is running inside a tunnel or the like)”) (Ito Column 22, line number 13-17: “Namely, this invention makes it possible to transmit navigation data extracted from the newest navigation information to the moving body from the navigation center over the entire time the moving body is traveling to the destination (instead of carrying out such transmission only at the time of departure of the moving body toward the destination).”) (Ito Column 22, line number 29-33: “According to the present invention described above, the moving body can obtain from the navigation center the navigation data extracted from the newest navigation information each time when the moving body reaches the predetermined request transmission points.”) (Note: Because the transmission points are transmitted at different times the second period in time is the tunnel according to the figure attached. It is possible for the location in the tunnel to not be determined) determine, based on the signal from the position determining device, a second position of the object at a third time subsequent to the second time; (Ito Column 11, line number 50-53: “a recommended route from a current position (the navigation starting point or the departure point) of the vehicle on which the navigation apparatus 100 is mounted to a destination (the navigation ending point)”) (Ito Column 13, line number 31-32: “The position measuring section 104 utilizes GPS and/or the like to measure the position of the vehicle.”) (Note: The second point of the object that carries the navigation apparatus is Destination “PA”)
PNG
media_image1.png
539
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ito does not disclose […] automatically simulate a plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; rank, based on one or more criteria comprising at least a similarity to past routes taken by the object, the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; estimate a most probable route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; and display the most probable route on a display.
However, Roth does teach […] automatically simulate a plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; (Roth Paragraph 0058: “The personal computing device 150 may output the plurality of routes”) […] estimate a most probable route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; (Roth Paragraph 0067: “The input may include user preferences for recommendation of an optimal route based on total cost, energy cost, time cost, energy consumed, fuel consumed, electricity consumed, or combination thereof.”) (Roth Paragraph 0069: “At 430, the method 400, using the personal computing device 150 and/or the infotainment system 160, may display information regarding the fuel consumption, electricity consumption, energy consumption, travel time, fuel cost, electricity cost, energy cost, time cost, and total cost for each of the plurality of routes to the user. Additionally, or alternatively, an optimal route may be recommended at 432 based on the user preferences.”) and display the most probable route on a display. (Roth Paragraph 0069: “At 428, the method 400, using the personal computing device 150, calculates the fuel cost, electricity cost, energy cost, time cost, and total cost of each of the plurality of optional routes. At 430, the method 400, using the personal computing device 150 and/or the infotainment system 160, may display information regarding the fuel consumption, electricity consumption, energy consumption, travel time, fuel cost, electricity cost, energy cost, time cost, and total cost for each of the plurality of routes to the user. Additionally, or alternatively, an optimal route may be recommended at 432 based on the user preferences.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito to include […] automatically simulate a plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; […] estimate a most probable route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; and display the most probable route on a display taught by Roth. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method for vehicle route selection. The method includes identifying a plurality of routes based on a current location or a starting location of a vehicle and a destination location. The method also includes determining an energy cost for each of the plurality of routes. [Roth Paragraph 0005]
Roth does not teach […] rank, based on one or more criteria comprising at least a similarity to past routes taken by the object, the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; […]
However, Beaurepaire does teach […] rank, based on one or more criteria comprising at least a similarity to past routes taken by the object, the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; (Beaurepaire Paragraph 0024: “Current navigation systems can provide route guidance (e.g., via a mobile device, an embedded navigation system, etc.) to enable a user to travel between locations (e.g., origin, destination, and/or waypoints)”) (Beaurepaire Paragraph 0025: “As part of providing route guidance, navigation systems compute and compare different possible routes or modes of transportation using a routing engine.”) (Beaurepaire Paragraph 0059: “In one embodiment, the system 100 ranks the user's historical routes based on all information and data corresponding to the respective routes being weighted evenly”) […]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Roth to include […] rank, based on one or more criteria comprising at least a similarity to past routes taken by the object, the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position; […] taught by Beaurepaire. This would have been for the benefit to provide a comparative analysis of a navigation route comprises determining, by a processor, an optimal navigation route. The method also comprises determining a historical navigation route based on a similarity between the historical navigation route and the optimal navigation route. [Beaurepaire Paragraph 0003]
6. Claim(s) 3-4, 9-10, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 6427117 B1) in view of Roth (US 20210055120 A1) further in view of Beaurepaire (US 20210341300 A1) and further in view of (US 20220146272 A1) to Verma et al. (hereinafter Verma).
Regarding claim 3, Ito in view of Roth and further in view of Beaurepaire teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Ito in view of Roth and further in view of Beaurepaire does not teach The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria further comprises an object velocity, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises: determining the object velocity at the first position of the object; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object velocity at the first position of the object.
However, Verma does teach The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria further comprises an object velocity, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises: (Verma Paragraph 0029: “In an example case, a user may select or rank one or more factors to be optimized in determining the optimal route 52.”) (Verma Paragraph 0030: “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the system 20 may include a controller 22 disposed within a vehicle 10 and configured to determine the optimal route 52 between the origin 30 and the destination 32.”) determining the object velocity at the first position of the object; (Verma Paragraph 0038: “Actual trip data may include speed data updated at least 1 Hz, vehicle specifications, origin/destination, time/date, location, etc.”) (Verma Paragraph 0042: “The system 20 includes hardware and/or software configured to graph all possible or plausible routes between the origin 30 and the destination 32.”) (Note: Speed is determined partly from velocity.) and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object velocity at the first position of the object. (Verma Paragraph 0029: “In an example case, a user may select or rank one or more factors to be optimized in determining the optimal route 52. For example, the system 20 may default to optimizing for travel time,”) (Note: In order to determine the travel time you need to determine the speed of a vehicle. Speed is determined partly from velocity.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Roth further in view of Beaurepaire to include The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria further comprises an object velocity, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises: determining the object velocity at the first position of the object; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object velocity at the first position of the object taught by Verma. This would have been for the benefit to provide a system for determining an optimal route between an origin and a destination is provided. [Verma Paragraph 0004]
Regarding claim 4, Ito in view of Roth and further in view of Beaurepaire teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Ito in view of Roth and further in view of Beaurepaire does not teach The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria further comprises an object acceleration, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises: and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object acceleration at the first position of the object.
However, Verma does teach The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria further comprises an object acceleration, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises: (Verma Paragraph 0029: “In an example case, a user may select or rank one or more factors to be optimized in determining the optimal route 52. For example, the system 20 may default to optimizing for travel time, energy consumption, and vehicle service life, but a user may modify those defaults to prioritize a route for best scenery.”) (Verma Paragraph 0030: “the optimal route 52 between the origin 30 and the destination 32.”) determining the object acceleration at the first position of the object; (Verma Paragraph 0038: Actual trip data may include speed data updated at least 1 Hz, vehicle specifications, origin/destination, time/date, location, etc.) (Note: Speed is determined partly from acceleration.) and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object acceleration at the first position of the object. (Verma Paragraph 0029: “In an example case, a user may select or rank one or more factors to be optimized in determining the optimal route 52. For example, the system 20 may default to optimizing for travel time, energy consumption, and vehicle service life, but a user may modify those defaults to prioritize a route for best scenery.”) (Verma Paragraph 0042: “The system 20 includes hardware and/or software configured to graph all possible or plausible routes between the origin 30 and the destination 32.”) (Note: Acceleration impacts travel time)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Roth further in view of Beaurepaire to include The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria further comprises an object acceleration, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises: and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object acceleration at the first position of the object taught by Verma. This would have been for the benefit to provide a system for determining an optimal route between an origin and a destination is provided. [Verma Paragraph 0004]
Regarding claim 9, Ito in view of Roth and further in view of Beaurepaire teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Ito in view of Roth and further in view of Beaurepaire does not teach The method of claim 1, wherein the estimated routes are along a mapped road network.
However, Verma does teach The method of claim 1, wherein the estimated routes are along a mapped road network. (Verma Paragraph 0042: The system 20 includes hardware and/or software configured to graph all possible or plausible routes between the origin 30 and the destination 32. Plausible routes are a subset of the possible routes, but excluding counterproductive portions such as backtracking, circular routing, etc. This hardware and/or software may include a 2-dimensional road network 46 and/or a road trip database 48, which may each be stored in the storage memory of one or both of the in-vehicle controller 22 and/or a server 24.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Roth further in view of Beaurepaire to include The method of claim 1, wherein the estimated routes are along a mapped road network taught by Verma. This would have been for the benefit to provide a system for determining an optimal route between an origin and a destination is provided. [Verma Paragraph 0004]
Regarding claim 10, Ito in view of Roth and further in view of Beaurepaire teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Ito in view of Roth and further in view of Beaurepaire does not teach The method of claim 9, wherein the estimated routes are aligned with the mapped road network.
However, Verma does teach The method of claim 9, wherein the estimated routes are aligned with the mapped road network. (Verma Paragraph 0042: The system 20 includes hardware and/or software configured to graph all possible or plausible routes between the origin 30 and the destination 32. Plausible routes are a subset of the possible routes, but excluding counterproductive portions such as backtracking, circular routing, etc. This hardware and/or software may include a 2-dimensional road network 46 and/or a road trip database 48, which may each be stored in the storage memory of one or both of the in-vehicle controller 22 and/or a server 24.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Roth further in view of Beaurepaire to include The method of claim 9, wherein the estimated routes are aligned with the mapped road network taught by Verma. This would have been for the benefit to provide a system for determining an optimal route between an origin and a destination is provided. [Verma Paragraph 0004]
Regarding claim 22, Ito in view of Roth and further in view of Beaurepaire teaches claim 21, accordingly, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated above.
Ito in view of Roth and further in view of Beaurepaire does not teach The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more criteria further comprises an object velocity, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to rank the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position by: determining the object velocity at the first position of the object; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object velocity at the first position of the object.
However, Verma does teach The system of claim 21, (Verma Paragraph 0076: “In another aspect, the methods may be embodied in systems that perform the steps thereof, and may be distributed across devices in a number of ways, or all of the functionality may be integrated into a dedicated, standalone device or other hardware.”) wherein the one or more criteria further comprises an object velocity, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to rank the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position by: (Verma Paragraph 0029: “In an example case, a user may select or rank one or more factors to be optimized in determining the optimal route 52.”) (Verma Paragraph 0030: “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the system 20 may include a controller 22 disposed within a vehicle 10 and configured to determine the optimal route 52 between the origin 30 and the destination 32.”) determining the object velocity at the first position of the object; (Verma Paragraph 0038: “Actual trip data may include speed data updated at least 1 Hz, vehicle specifications, origin/destination, time/date, location, etc.”) (Verma Paragraph 0042: “The system 20 includes hardware and/or software configured to graph all possible or plausible routes between the origin 30 and the destination 32.”) (Note: Speed is determined partly from velocity.) and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object velocity at the first position of the object. (Verma Paragraph 0029: “In an example case, a user may select or rank one or more factors to be optimized in determining the optimal route 52. For example, the system 20 may default to optimizing for travel time,”) (Note: In order to determine the travel time you need to determine the speed of a vehicle. Speed is determined partly from velocity.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Roth further in view of Beaurepaire to include The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more criteria further comprises an object velocity, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to rank the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position by: determining the object velocity at the first position of the object; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object velocity at the first position of the object taught by Verma. This would have been for the benefit to provide a system for determining an optimal route between an origin and a destination is provided. [Verma Paragraph 0004]
Regarding claim 23, Ito in view of Roth and further in view of Beaurepaire teaches claim 21, accordingly, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated above.
Ito in view of Roth and further in view of Beaurepaire does not teach The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more criteria further comprises an object acceleration, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to rank the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position by: determining the object acceleration at the first position of the object; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object acceleration at the first position of the object.
However, Verma does teach The system of claim 21, (Verma Paragraph 0076: “In another aspect, the methods may be embodied in systems that perform the steps thereof, and may be distributed across devices in a number of ways, or all of the functionality may be integrated into a dedicated, standalone device or other hardware.”) wherein the one or more criteria further comprises an object acceleration, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to rank the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position by: (Verma Paragraph 0029: “In an example case, a user may select or rank one or more factors to be optimized in determining the optimal route 52.”) (Verma Paragraph 0030: “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the system 20 may include a controller 22 disposed within a vehicle 10 and configured to determine the optimal route 52 between the origin 30 and the destination 32.”) determining the object acceleration at the first position of the object; (Verma Paragraph 0038: “Actual trip data may include speed data updated at least 1 Hz, vehicle specifications, origin/destination, time/date, location, etc.”) (Verma Paragraph 0042: “The system 20 includes hardware and/or software configured to graph all possible or plausible routes between the origin 30 and the destination 32.”) (Note: Speed is determined partly from acceleration.) and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object acceleration at the first position of the object. (Verma Paragraph 0029: “In an example case, a user may select or rank one or more factors to be optimized in determining the optimal route 52. For example, the system 20 may default to optimizing for travel time,”) (Note: In order to determine the travel time you need to determine the speed of a vehicle. Speed is determined partly from acceleration.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Roth further in view of Beaurepaire to include The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more criteria further comprises an object acceleration, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to rank the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position by: determining the object acceleration at the first position of the object; and ranking the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position based at least partially on the object acceleration at the first position of the object taught by Verma. This would have been for the benefit to provide a system for determining an optimal route between an origin and a destination is provided. [Verma Paragraph 0004]
7. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 6427117 B1) in view of Roth (US 20210055120 A1) further in view of Beaurepaire (US 20210341300 A1) and further in view of (US 20090171566 A1) to Morimoto et al. (hereinafter Morimoto).
Regarding claim 12, Ito in view of Roth and further in view of Beaurepaire teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Ito in view of Roth and further in view of Beaurepaire does not teach The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the most probable route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises estimating after the object has become motionless.
However, Morimoto does teach The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the most probable route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises estimating after the object has become motionless. (Morimoto Paragraph 0005: “The navigation device is also provided with a route search function that, when the desired destination is input, searches for an optimum route from the vehicle's position to the destination.”) (Morimoto Paragraph 0126: “As explained in detail above, according to the present example, when the vehicle is parked in an on-street parking zone in the vicinity of the destination, it is possible for the navigation device 1, the route search method used by the navigation device 1, and the computer programs that are executed by the navigation device 1 to find an optimum route to the destination that traverses a road on which an on-street parking zone is provided.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito in view of Roth further in view of Beaurepaire to include The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the most probable route from among the plurality of possible routes between the first position and the second position further comprises estimating after the object has become motionless taught by Morimoto. This would have been for the benefit to provide Exemplary implementations provide navigation devices, methods, and programs that set a destination, find an on-street parking zone that is in the vicinity of the destination, and find a route, by modifying a search cost for a road, that will arrive at the destination by way of a road on having the on-street parking zone. [Morimoto Paragraph 0014]
8. Claim(s) 13-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20230332898 A1) to Koponen et al. (hereinafter Koponen).
Regarding claim 13, Koponen discloses A method comprising: tracking, based on a signal from a position determining device, a route of an object along a mapped path to determine an actual route of the object; (Koponen Paragraph 0005: “It is also usual for devices to display map information on-screen during the navigation, such information regularly being updated on-screen so that the map information displayed is representative of the current location of the device, and thus of the user or user's vehicle if the device is being used for in-vehicle navigation.”) (Koponen Paragraph 0007: “The map matched position is received by one or more client devices or software modules 40, for example, for use in determining a route from a current position to a destination,”) detecting a loss or distortion of the signal from the position determining device; (Koponen Paragraph 0166: “For example, jumps may be allowed where there has been a relatively large gap between input position data samples, e.g. due to a tunnel.”) determining a difference between the actual route and a detected route by determining the detected route is outside of the mapped path; (Koponen Paragraph 0166: “The estimated current position for output may or may not lie on the identified best matching candidate path.”) (Koponen Paragraph 0166: “However, in some situations, the identified candidate path that is the best match to the new position data sample may differ from that identified in relation to the previous data sample. In such cases the decision engine may decide whether to “jump” to the new candidate path, or remain with the previous candidate path, even though it is no longer the best match. Such a determination may depend upon various factors.”) simulating a plurality of possible corrected routes that project in a plurality of directions originating from a location of the loss or distortion of the signal; (Koponen Paragraph 0183: “Special situations such as U-turn, tunnel and reverse driving are thus treated separately at the beginning of the map matching algorithm. When a special manoeuvre is detected, the map matching is prepared by properly constructing or expanding path candidates and the input data related to the manoeuvre are skipped. The topological map matching algorithm never processes the manoeuvre.”) ranking, based on one or more criteria comprising at least a similarity to one or more past routes taken by the object, (Koponen Paragraph 0190: “Once each path has been assigned a combined multi-matcher belief fusion score, path ranking module 270 ranks the paths according to this score,”) (Koponen Paragraph 0191: “A decision maker 280 is used in a post-processing step wherein the new best path, as determined by the path ranking module 270, is compared to the previously determined best path”) the plurality of possible corrected routes; estimating a most probable corrected route from among the plurality of possible corrected routes; (Koponen Paragraph 0190: “Once each path has been assigned a combined multi-matcher belief fusion score, path ranking module 270 ranks the paths according to this score, and this ranking is used to find the best path. Poorly matching paths may be discarded at this stage. The final map matched position is chosen by evaluating the best position on the preferred path together with the best positions on other paths that are connected to it. This step may help account for input inaccuracy, e.g. at intersections or other bifurcations.”) and displaying the most probable corrected route on one of an infotainment screen or mobile device. (Koponen Paragraph 0005: “During navigation along a calculated route, it is usual for such devices to provide visual and/or audible instructions to guide the user along a chosen route to the end of that route, i.e. the desired destination. It is also usual for devices to display map information on-screen during the navigation, such information regularly being updated on-screen so that the map information displayed is representative of the current location of the device, and thus of the user or user's vehicle if the device is being used for in-vehicle navigation.”) (Koponen Paragraph 0030: “The methods of the present invention may be carried out by a mobile device. The mobile device has a memory and a set of one or more processors. Such a device may be a dedicated navigation device e.g. having any of the features described in the background section above. Such a device may be a portable navigation device, or an integrated in-vehicle device.”) (Koponen Paragraph 0193: “Thus, a current position may be displayed to the user that is an estimate of the current position based on the last map matched current position, taking into account the amount by which the current position may have advanced since the position data sample was received for map matching.”)
Regarding claim 14, Koponen discloses The method of claim 13, wherein the position determining device is associated with the object, and wherein the object comprises a vehicle. (Koponen Paragraph 0002: “Portable navigation devices (PNDs) that include GPS (Global Positioning System) signal reception and processing functionality are well known”) (Koponen Paragraph 0005: “It is also usual for devices to display map information on-screen during the navigation, such information regularly being updated on-screen so that the map information displayed is representative of the current location of the device, and thus of the user or user's vehicle if the device is being used for in-vehicle navigation.”)
Regarding claim 15, Koponen discloses The method of claim 13, wherein the one or more criteria further comprises an object velocity, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible corrected routes further comprises: determining the object velocity along the actual route of the object; and ranking the plurality of possible corrected routes based at least partially on the object velocity along the actual route of the object. (Koponen Paragraph 0189: “Further matchers such as a distance travelled matcher 251 and a speed limit matcher 252 may also be used.”) (Koponen Paragraph 0189: “The match scores from each of the matchers 231,232,251,252 are then combined in a multi-matcher belief fusion module 260”) (Koponen Paragraph 0190: “Once each path has been assigned a combined multi-matcher belief fusion score, path ranking module 270 ranks the paths according to this score, and this ranking is used to find the best path.”) (Note: Speed limit matchers are partly based on velocity)
Regarding claim 17, Koponen discloses The method of claim 13, wherein the one or more criteria further comprises an object acceleration, and wherein ranking the plurality of possible corrected routes further comprises: determining the object acceleration along the actual route of the object; and ranking the plurality of corrected routes based at least partially on the object acceleration along the actual route of the object. (Koponen Paragraph 0189: “Further matchers such as a distance travelled matcher 251 and a speed limit matcher 252 may also be used.”) (Koponen Paragraph 0189: “The match scores from each of the matchers 231,232,251,252 are then combined in a multi-matcher belief fusion module 260”) (Koponen Paragraph 0190: “Once each path has been assigned a combined multi-matcher belief fusion score, path ranking module 270 ranks the paths according to this score, and this ranking is used to find the best path.”) (Note: Speed limit matchers are partly based on acceleration)
Regarding claim 18, Koponen discloses The method of claim 13, wherein the position determining device is a global positioning system (GPS) sensor or a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) sensor. (Koponen Paragraph 0002: “Portable navigation devices (PNDs) that include GPS (Global Positioning System) signal reception and processing functionality are well known”) (Koponen Paragraph 0005: “It is also usual for devices to display map information on-screen during the navigation, such information regularly being updated on-screen so that the map information displayed is representative of the current location of the device, and thus of the user or user's vehicle if the device is being used for in-vehicle navigation.”)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 7:16AM-4:46PM M, 6:30AM-5:00PM T-W, 7:30AM-5:00PM Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.J.H./ Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights