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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/20/2026 has been entered.
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 particular 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 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites," A shortest path determining method for a travel path of a vehicle, wherein the method is accomplished at least in part using an electronic device comprising a processor and a memory, the method comprising: determining performing and determining..., performing..., and determining..., wherein the performing..." These limitations, which are similarly recited in the other independent claims, are targeted at a specific solution to a software problem (which has been found to be patent eligible, see at least Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp.) that is used to efficiently determine a shortest path between two node in a graph which maps a shortest path between two locations in an actual physical spatial area.” (page 15, first paragraph)
Applicant further argues "the human cannot directly read the shortest paths from the initial encounter node to the start node and the target node both stored in the memory. Similarly, the "wherein" clause cannot be mentally processable” (page 16, first paragraph).
Applicant also argues “as recited in paragraph [0010], [0029], [0039], and [0040] and the Abstract, because an encounter of searches in two directions can avoid exponential growth of expansion nodes in a middle part, spatiotemporal complexity of the search may be reduced and efficiency of determining a shortest path may be improved. That is to say, the number of nodes and edges in the graph are large due to the emphasis on the exponential growth of expansion nodes in a middle part, spatiotemporal complexity of the search and the efficiency of determining a shortest path. From the opposite perspective, if the expect numbers of nodes and edges in the graph are small, for example, on several nodes and edges, the exponential growth of expansion nodes in a middle part, spatiotemporal complexity of the search and the efficiency of determining a shortest path would not be emphasized because they don't attract any attention. Therefore, the assertion of the Office Action that the determining step is mentally processed are untenable from the exemplary example shown in Fig. 1 and/or other examples.” (page 16).
Applicant further argues “To sum up, the technical problem to be solved in the present disclosure is "how to quickly determine the shortest travel path between locations for a vehicle", and the technical means adopted is to determine the location connected by the road as a node, determine the road connecting each location as an edge, and determine the cost weight of the edge based on the length of the road, thereby determining the target undirected weighted graph, and then determining the shortest road path based on the graph and specific selection means. Based on the present disclosure, it is possible to quickly determine the shortest travel path between locations, which is very friendly to the user to arrive at the destination.” (page 18, 2nd paragraph)
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.
At best applicants 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, 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. This looks more like a drafting effort to tie the abstract idea as being done on a computer, 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."
It appears that the amendments are nothing more than further specifying the field of use in the preamble, and still merely applying the abstract idea on a computer. The claim doesn’t actually recite limitations that receive data from an input device, but to the extent the amendments have the start point and target point being “received by an input device” that is at most insignificant extra-solution data gathering as you need a start and end to traverse any graph, and merely apply it on a computer. This looks more like a drafting effort to tie the abstract idea as being done on a computer, and does not provide integration into a practical application or significantly more.
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:
"determining 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.
"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”, 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” 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”, 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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 6-9, 14-16, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 , “real-time manner” have 112(b) subjectiveness issues. What particular manner or timing is real-time?
Claims 9 and 16 are being rejected for similar reasons.
Dependent claims are being rejected as depending from rejection of parent claims.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights