DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner Notes
(1) In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121 (b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131 (b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
(2) Examiner cites columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Claim 1 recites a specific method for path planning that solves a computer-centric problem: the exponential growth of expansion nodes during shortest path searches (e.g., Floyd algorithm) leading to high spatiotemporal complexity. The claim achieves this improvement by using forward search and reverse search to obtain an initial encounter node and then using that encounter node and the stored shortest paths to efficiently determine the shortest travel path between two locations in an actual physical spatial area. This is a concrete improvement to the functioning of the vehicle navigation system itself, not a mere application of an abstract idea. The improvement is a direct result of this specific computer-implemented technique.” (page 16, first paragraph)
Applicant further argues “The Claimed Steps Cannot Be Performed by the Human Mind. The Examiner has characterized multiple steps as mentally performable. Applicant respectfully disagrees
Hardware dependency: Claim 1 expressly requires that the start point and target point are received via an input device; that the shortest distances and paths are recorded and stored in memory; and that the processor performs the search steps. A human cannot directly "read" the shortest paths stored in memory. A human cannot "use a digital road map" - a database resides in physical storage and requires a processor to access.
Scale and complexity: The specification emphasizes avoiding exponential growth of expansion nodes and reducing spatiotemporal complexity (% [0010], [0029], [0039], [0040]). These imply that the graph contains a large number of nodes and edges - as is typical in real-world city road networks. A human cannot, in real time, process hundreds or thousands of nodes, maintain multiple expansion node sets, and record distances for each node. Figure 1 is merely an illustrative example of the technical principle; it does not limit the scope of the claim to a tiny graph. The claimed method is designed for large-scale, dense graphs where exponential growth would otherwise be prohibitive” (page 16, paragraphs 2-4).
Applicant also argues “Claim 1 recites additional elements including:
o a digital road map stored in memory;
o an input device that receives the start and target points;
o a processor that constructs the graph from real-world data, performs bidirectional
search, and records intermediate results;
o a memory that stores shortest distances and paths;
o outputting the target shortest path to a vehicle navigation system to guide the vehicle.
These are physical components and concrete steps that work together to produce a
practical outcome - guiding a vehicle. The claim is not simply "applying an algorithm to roads"; it is a specific implementation of a path-finding method in an actual vehicle navigation system” (page 17).
Applicant further argues “in the context of the claimed bidirectional search, the recording of shortest distances and paths is an integral part of the algorithm. Without storing these values in memory, the method cannot later retrieve the shortest path from the initial encounter node to the start node and to the target node to determine the target shortest path. The recording is not "extra-solution" - it is essential to the claimed invention's operation and is performed in real time by the processor using physical memory. Therefore, the claims integrate any judicial exception into a practical application - vehicle navigation with improved efficiency (page 17).
Further, applicant argues “
A. The Specific Combination of Elements Is Not Routine, Conventional, or Well-Understood
This combination of the additional elements mentioned above is not routine or conventional in the art of vehicle navigation. The Background ([0003]) notes that conventional approaches (e.g., Floyd algorithm) use different techniques that do not involve bidirectional searches with expansion node management and post-encounter updating. The claimed method, by reducing exponential growth, provides an unconventional improvement to navigation system efficiency.
B. The Claims Improve the Functioning of the Vehicle Navigation System Itself
By reducing spatiotemporal complexity, the claimed method:
o reduces processor computation time, thereby lowering power consumption
o reduces memory footprint (no need to store an all-pairs shortest path table);
o improves response time, providing the user with a faster navigation result.
These are improvements to the functioning of the computer/navigation system, not merely an abstract algorithm.
C. The Hardware Limitations Are Not Generic "Apply It" Language
Claim 1 does not simply add "processor" and "memory" to an abstract idea. It details how the processor: constructing a graph from a database, performing multi-step searches with expansion node sets, recording data to memory, reading from memory, and outputting to a navigation system. This level of specificity far exceeds the "apply it" language found ineligible in Alice.
Therefore, even if the claims were considered to contain an abstract idea, they include significantly more than that idea.” (page 18)
Respectfully, it is noted that, as per MPEP 2106.05(a), “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” There are not any additional elements, other than the field of use for roads connecting locations. All of the steps appear to be merely traversing a graph in a specific fashion, but that would go beyond the abstract idea. Particularly, where there is no specifics as to the size of the graph. For instance, the graph in Fig. 1 is small enough to be mentally processable. Further, the arguments on “digital” roadmaps is nothing more than apply it on a computer. Additionally, much of the arguments focus on the ‘implied’ size of the graph and road map, however there is no such size claimed in the claims. Nothing in the claims requires a certain size road map, graph, number of nodes, etc. So those arguments are not persuasive, as they do not align with the actual claim scope. “constructing, […], using a digital road map stored in the memory, a target undirected weighted graph is still reciting an abstract idea as a mental process and/or math.
At best applicants appear to have described an improved algorithm, but that is essentially an entire mental process. There is not anything in the claims more than the mental process steps of traversing or tracing the graph based on weights to determine a path, but that is a mentally performable evaluation. To any extent this requires multiple traversals, one can still do all that mentally with the mere usage of pen and paper as an aid to track the different iterations.
Further noted, retrieving the shortest distance/path from memory or recording the shortest distance/path is at most insignificant extra-solution data gathering as you need a start and end to traverse any graph or storing calculated data associated with start and end points, and merely apply it on a computer.
Limitation “outputting, by the processor, the target shortest path to a vehicle navigation system to guide the vehicle along the target shortest path” is merely sending the shortest path result and there is nothing disclose how the results being utilized to “guide the vehicle” This is more like insignificant extra-solution of generic outputting data, and does not provide integration into a practical application or significantly more.
The aspects of applying this algorithm to roads is nothing more than a mere restriction to a specific field of use as per MPEP 2106.05(h). Note as in the spec at [0003] the shortest path is part of things such as network planning and circuit diagram design as well. Merely restricting the algorithm in the claims to the field of road paths is not any integration into a practical application or significantly more. Rather, it is “generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” which as explained in MPEP 2106.05(h) the courts have held cannot make the claim eligible by simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use."
Noted, any improvement is an improvement in the algorithm alone, which is an improvement solely in the mental process or math. Saying that this is for car navigation, doesn’t change that the algorithm is applicable to any graph traversal and this merely specifies a field of use. Even if this algorithm can avoid growth of expansion nodes in the middle of a graph, that is not an improvement in the functioning of the computer or technology, but rather an improved abstract idea.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16 and 18-20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter because it does not fall within four category of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C 101 (Process, machine manufacture or composition of matter).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (Step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B). Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas.
Analysis
STEP 1:
Claims 1, 9 and 16 subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1, 9 and 16 subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
STEP 2A, PRONG l (Claim 1): The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
"constructing, […] using a digital road map stored in the memory, a target undirected weighted graph corresponding to a target area from a start point of path planning to a target point of the path planning, wherein the target undirected weighted graph comprises a plurality of nodes, edges connected between the nodes, and cost weights respectively corresponding to the edges," as drafted this recited a mentally performable process. One can mentally generate such a graph, particularly where there is no specification as to the number of required nodes and edges. For instance, the graph shown in Fig. 1 is mentally determinable. Noted, “using a digital road map stored in the memory” is nothing more than “apply it” on a computer.
"performing, starting from a start node corresponding to the start point, a forward search based on the cost weights respectively corresponding to the edges of each node, and performing, starting from a target node corresponding to the target point, a reverse search based on the cost weights respectively corresponding to the edges of each node, to determine an initial encounter node for the forward search and the reverse search" as drafted this recited a mentally performable process. One can mentally trace or traverse a graph, forwards and backwards. Additionally, "breadth first search" is a mathematical algorithm and thus recites a mathematical concept. See Skiena, S.S. (2012).Breadth-First Search, pp. 162-164 In: The Algorithm Design Manual. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-070-4_4
"determining a target shortest path from the start point to the target point based on the initial encounter node." As drafted recites a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. One can mentally judge the shortest path between two points based on traversals.
“wherein the performing, starting from a start node corresponding to the start point, a forward search based on the cost weights respectively corresponding to the edges of each node, and performing, starting from a target node corresponding to the target point, a reverse search based on the cost weights respectively corresponding to the edges of each node, to determine an initial encounter node for the forward search and the reverse search comprises: for an ith search, performing the following steps: determining an ith forward node with a shortest distance to the start node from an ith forward expansion node set based on the cost weights respectively corresponding to the edges of each node, wherein a first forward expansion node set comprises a forward successor node connected to the start node, and i is a positive integer”;
“and determining that the ith forward node is the initial encounter node in response to that the ith forward node is a kth reverse node, wherein k is a positive integer less than i, and the kth reverse node is a reverse node with a shortest distance to the target node that is determined in a reverse search process of a kth search, in response to that the ith forward node is not the kth reverse node, determining that the i forward node is not the initial encounter node, removing the ith forward node from the ith forward expansion node set, and adding an ith forward successor node connected to the ith forward node into the i forward expansion node set to obtain a (i+1)th forward expansion node set: determining an ith reverse node with a shortest distance to the target node from an ith reverse expansion node set based on the cost weights respectively corresponding to the edges of each node, wherein a first reverse expansion node set comprises a reverse successor node connected to the target node; in response to that the it reverse node is not the initial encounter node, removing the ith reverse node from the ith reverse expansion node set, and adding an ith reverse successor node connected to the ith reverse node into the ith reverse expansion node set to obtain a (i+1)th reverse expansion node set”;
“and determining that the ith reverse node is the initial encounter node in response to that the ith reverse node is a jth forward node, wherein j is a positive integer less than or equal to i: wherein the determining a target shortest path from the start point to the target point based on the initial encounter node comprises: determining a first target shortest distance corresponding to the initial encounter node based on a shortest distance between the initial encounter node and the start node and a shortest distance between the initial encounter node and the target node; determining at least one first encounter node from the (i+1)th forward expansion node set; determining a second target shortest distance based on each first encounter node and the first target shortest distance; determining at least one second encounter node from the ith reverse expansion node set in response to that the ith forward node is the initial encounter node; determining a third target shortest distance based on each second encounter node and the second target shortest distance; taking a path corresponding to the third target shortest distance as the target shortest path”;
“or in response to that the ith reverse node is the initial encounter node, determining at least one third encounter node from the (i+1)th reverse expansion node set; determining a fourth target shortest distance based on each third encounter node and the first target shortest distance; and taking a path corresponding to the fourth target shortest distance as the target shortest path.”. All of the steps appear to be merely traversing a graph in a specific fashion, but that would go beyond the abstract idea. Particularly, where there is no specifics as to the size of the graph. For instance, the graph in Fig. 1 is small enough to be mentally processable.
At best the claims appear to have described an improved algorithm, but that is essentially an entire mental process. There are not anything in the claims are more than the mental process steps of traversing or tracing the graph based on weights to determine a path, which is a mentally performable evaluation. To any extent this requires multiple traversals, one can still do all that mentally with the mere usage of pen and paper as an aid to track the different iterations.
At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: That the graph is for roads "wherein the node represents a location at which roads are connected in a target area, the edge connected between the nodes represent a road connecting various locations in the target area, and the cost weight corresponding to each edge relates to a length of the road in the target area" is at most a field of use limitation under MPEP 2106.05(h) and does not provide integration into a practical application. The specification of the type of information the graph represents does not change the abstract idea recited or that the claim is entirely mentally performable or math. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
The aspects of applying this algorithm to roads “for travel path” is nothing more than a mere restriction to a specific field of use as per MPEP 2106.05(h). Note as in the spec at [0003] the shortest path is part of things such as network planning and circuit diagram design as well. Merely restricting the algorithm in the claims to the field of road paths is not any integration into a practical application or significantly more. Rather, it is “generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” which as explained in MPEP 2106.05(h) the courts have held cannot make the claim eligible by simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." and does not provide integration into a practical application. The specification of the type of information the graph represents does not change the abstract idea recited or that the claim is entirely mentally performable or math.
Further, the claims recites “a starting point received by an input device…”, “a target point received from input device”, “recording a shortest distance from each node to the start node”, “recording a shortest distance from each node to the target node…”, “the shortest path from the initial encounter node to the start node and the shortest path from the initial encounter node to the target node which are stored in the memory” and “recoding a shortest distance from each node to the target node and a shortest path corresponding to the shortest distance in a real-time manner in the memory”, “outputting, […], the target shortest path to a vehicle navigation system to guide the vehicle along the target shortest path” which merely constitute extra-insignificant solution activity (mere data gathering and output, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated; see MPEP 2106.05(g) – presenting offers, selecting information examples; also see MPEP 2106.05(d), II.; receive/transmit over network; store/retrieve from memory/storage).
The additional limitations “processor; memory; digital map” describe generic computer components, akin to adding the word "apply it" in connection with the abstract idea.
STEP 2B (Claim 1):
Under step 2B, the claims recites “a starting point received by an input device…”, “a target point received from input device”, “recording a shortest distance from each node to the start node”, “recording a shortest distance from each node to the target node…”, “the shortest path from the initial encounter node to the start node and the shortest path from the initial encounter node to the target node which are stored in the memory” and “recoding a shortest distance from each node to the target node and a shortest path corresponding to the shortest distance in a real-time manner in the memory”, and “outputting, […], the target shortest path to a vehicle navigation system to guide the vehicle along the target shortest path” which merely constitute extra-insignificant solution activity (mere data gathering and output, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated; see MPEP 2106.05(g) – presenting offers, selecting information examples; also see also see MPEP 2106.05(d), II.; receive/transmit over network; store/retrieve from memory/storage) and is well-known, conventional, and routine in the art (See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering); see MPEP 2106.05(d), IL; receive/transmit over network; store/retrieve from memory/storage).
Viewed as a whole, the additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 9 and 16 are being rejected under U.S.C. 101 for similar reason.
Claims 6-8, 14-15 and 20-23 are dependent on their respective parent claims 1, 9 and 16 respectively, and include all the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 16; Since these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus the claims are direct to abstract idea.
Claims 1, 6-9, 14-16, and 20-23 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Limitation “outputting, by the processor, the target shortest path to a vehicle navigation system to guide the vehicle along the target shortest path” but there is no disclose of “vehicle navigation system” in the application specification as well the drawings.
Dependent claims are being rejected as depending on rejection of parent claims.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 KEN HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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.
/KEN HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
