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 .
Application Status
This Final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 23 January 2026. Claims 1-8 and 24 are examined and pending. Claims 1, 7, 13, and 16-17 are currently amended, claims 9-12 are cancelled, and claims 21-24are new.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth in the Office Action of 05 August 2022 have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argues the following:
Independent claims Applicant's specification illustrates various technological problems. For example, "occupancy-based lanes encourage people to travel with more people in a vehicle, which preserves resources and reduces per person pollution. When occupancy is not considered in routing, it can often lead to a sub-optimal navigation result, as a user is forced to balance personal preferences for calculating routes that 'avoid tolls' on the one hand and finding the fastest estimated time to arrival (ETA) on the other." Specification at 2. Applicant's specification goes on to point out several deficiencies experienced in the art prior to Applicant's invention:
Often, navigation applications disregard the express lanes on a highway altogether because they are unable to distinguish average speeds on toll/HOV/HOT lanes from the unrestricted lanes. For HOV lanes, this means they disregard the capability to use occupancy to take advantage of the faster lane. For simple toll express lanes, they disregard the capability to pay a toll to travel in a faster lane. For HOT lanes, they disregard the capability to either pay toll or use occupancy to travel in a faster
lane. Specification at 4.
When express lanes are co-located with unrestricted lanes on a highway, the navigation applications do not indicate the presence of these lanes nor show the user an accurate ETA due to their inability to distinguish speeds between
express/toll and unrestricted lanes. Specification at 5.
Currently available techniques must revise determined routes/times based on increases or decreases in traffic congestion, detected road events (e.g., accidents,
constructions zones, road closures, whether conditions, etc.). Specification at 6.
Car occupants must manually optimize their route by turning off the "avoid tolls"
option if they are aware of the presence of HOT roads/lanes along their route.
Specification at 7.
[Existing] navigation systems are deficient because they cannot automatically determine whether a road/lane is toll-free or requires toll payment based on vehicle
occupancy. Specification at 8.
[Existing systems are] deficient because when it does not have enough data to estimate the traffic flow for a particular section of road, that section will not have
any traffic information. Specification at 9.
Applicant's invention provides a technological solution to the above-illustrated technological problem. For example, Applicant's invention provides techniques that solve inaccurate modeling issues by modeling high occupancy toll lanes (HOT) and high occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV) in the underlying path determination algorithm. Applicant's invention gives the ability accurately model and predict traffic and other potential navigational issues while considering vehicle occupancy.
Applicant's claims "do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind." MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). That is, like the claims in SRIInt'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the human mind is not equipped to performed Applicant's claimed invention. For example, the human mind cannot practically process vehicle location information and the vehicle speed information to derive lane-specific average speeds using a machine learning technique. Nor is the human mind equipped to apply the lane-specific average speeds as weights of respective edges in a machine-learning representation. As the Deputy Commissioner warns, "the mental process grouping is not without limits. Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind." Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, from Charles Kim, Deputy Comm'r for Patents, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, to Patent Examining Corps (Aug. 4, 2025), available at: htts //"wwuspt . ct/si"te/deaut,:aes/docunien eo-101-2 }"50804. df("a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s).")
For at least the forgoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that Applicant's claims are beyond the limits of the Mental Processes grouping and are therefore patentable.
The examiner has considered the arguments and respectfully disagree. The independent claims recite determining a first travel duration for the vehicle to travel from the start location to the destination along the route; determining whether any road segments of the plurality of road segments include restricted lanes having an occupancy-based restriction; based at least in part on determining that at least one road segment of the plurality of road segments includes a restricted lane having an occupancy-based restriction: determining whether a number of occupants of the vehicle meets or exceeds the occupancy-based restriction; determining whether a second travel duration, based at least in part on the edge weights for the restricted lane, for the vehicle to travel from the start location to the destination using the restricted lane is less than the first travel duration. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “input/output circuitry”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of information relating to a plurality of road segments, start location, destination location, restricted lanes information, and number of occupants in the vehicle could determine a first travel duration for the vehicle to travel from the start location to the destination along the route; determine whether any road segments of the plurality of road segments include restricted lanes having an occupancy-based restriction; based at least in part on determining that at least one road segment of the plurality of road segments includes a restricted lane having an occupancy-based restriction: determine whether a number of occupants of the vehicle meets or exceeds the occupancy-based restriction; determine whether a second travel duration, based at least in part on the edge weights for the restricted lane, for the vehicle to travel from the start location to the destination using the restricted lane is less than the first travel duration. The mere nominal recitation of “input/output circuitry” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of retrieving information relating to a plurality of road segments comprising a route between a start location of a vehicle and a destination of the vehicle; receiving, for at least one road segments in which the restricted lane is adjacent and parallel to an unrestricted lane, vehicle location information and corresponding vehicle speed information; processing, the vehicle location information and the vehicle speed information do derive lane-specific average speeds; applying the lane-specific average speeds as weights of respective edges in a machine-learning representation of the at least one road segment displaying navigational directions from the start location to the destination that do not include the restricted lane; displaying navigational directions from the start location to the destination that include the restricted lane; displaying navigational directions from the start location to the destination that do not include the restricted lane, a machine-learning technique, database, user equipment device, a memory, and input/output circuitry. The retrieving and receiving step are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (restricted lanes information, number of occupants in vehicle, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying, processing, and applying steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a database, user equipment device, a machine learning technique, a memory, and input/output circuitry is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the retrieving, receiving, applying, processing, and displaying steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Thus, the claims as presented are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As such, the rejection under USC 101 is maintained herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 18, the recited limitation “at least one road segments” appears to be a typographical error and should be “at least one road segment”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 21 the recited limitation “assigning the modes”, in line 5 is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the two modes or if these are different modes. Further, in lines 5-6, the recited limitation “at least in part relative” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner what this phrase is defining or limiting?
Claim 22 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-8 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of 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 falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-8 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
Independent claims 1-8 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite determining a first travel duration for the vehicle to travel from the start location to the destination along the route; determining whether any road segments of the plurality of road segments include restricted lanes having an occupancy-based restriction; based at least in part on determining that at least one road segment of the plurality of road segments includes a restricted lane having an occupancy-based restriction: determining whether a number of occupants of the vehicle meets or exceeds the occupancy-based restriction; determining whether a second travel duration, based at least in part on the edge weights for the restricted lane, for the vehicle to travel from the start location to the destination using the restricted lane is less than the first travel duration. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “input/output circuitry”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of information relating to a plurality of road segments, start location, destination location, restricted lanes information, and number of occupants in the vehicle could determine a first travel duration for the vehicle to travel from the start location to the destination along the route; determine whether any road segments of the plurality of road segments include restricted lanes having an occupancy-based restriction; based at least in part on determining that at least one road segment of the plurality of road segments includes a restricted lane having an occupancy-based restriction: determine whether a number of occupants of the vehicle meets or exceeds the occupancy-based restriction; determine whether a second travel duration, based at least in part on the edge weights for the restricted lane, for the vehicle to travel from the start location to the destination using the restricted lane is less than the first travel duration. The mere nominal recitation of “input/output circuitry” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of retrieving information relating to a plurality of road segments comprising a route between a start location of a vehicle and a destination of the vehicle; receiving, for at least one road segments in which the restricted lane is adjacent and parallel to an unrestricted lane, vehicle location information and corresponding vehicle speed information; processing, the vehicle location information and the vehicle speed information do derive lane-specific average speeds; applying the lane-specific average speeds as weights of respective edges in a machine-learning representation of the at least one road segment displaying navigational directions from the start location to the destination that do not include the restricted lane; displaying navigational directions from the start location to the destination that include the restricted lane; displaying navigational directions from the start location to the destination that do not include the restricted lane, a machine-learning technique, database, user equipment device, a memory, and input/output circuitry. The retrieving and receiving step are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (restricted lanes information, number of occupants in vehicle, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying, processing, and applying steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a database, user equipment device, a machine learning technique, a memory, and input/output circuitry is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the retrieving, receiving, applying, processing, and displaying steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-8 and 14-20 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-8 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 13-15, 18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaither (US 20170284814 A1) in view of Yang (US 20190310100 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Gaither discloses a method comprising: retrieving, from a database, information relating to a plurality of road segments comprising a route between a start location of a vehicle and a destination of the vehicle (see at least [0006], [0041], [0053-0056], and [0067]); determining a first travel duration for the vehicle to travel from the start location to the destination along the route (see at least [0057]); determining whether any road segments of the plurality of road segments include restricted lanes having an occupancy-based restriction (see at least [0006], [0018-0020], [0029-0038], [0041], [0050-0063], [0067], and [0073-0080]); and based at least in part on determining that at least one road segment of the plurality of road segments includes a restricted lane having an occupancy-based restriction: determining whether a number of occupants of the vehicle meets or exceeds the occupancy-based restriction (see at least [0029], [0031], [0042], [0059], and [0076]); based at least in part on determining that the number of occupants of the vehicle does not meet the occupancy-based restriction, causing display, at a user equipment device, navigational directions from the start location to the destination that do not include the restricted lane (see at least [0029], [0031], [0042], and [0059]); and based at least on determining that the number of occupants of the vehicle meets or exceeds the occupancy-based restriction: determining whether a second travel duration, based at least in part on the edge weights for the restricted lane, for the vehicle to travel from the start location to the destination using the restricted lane is less than the first travel duration (see at least [0037], [0055], [0057], and [0064-0068]); based at least on determining that the second travel duration is less than the first travel duration, causing display, at the user equipment device, navigational directions from the start location to the destination that include the restricted lane (see at least [0037], [0055], [0057], and [0064-0068]); and based at least in part on determining that the second travel duration is greater than the first travel duration, causing display, at the user equipment device, navigational directions from the start location to the destination that do not include the restricted lane (see at least [0037], [0055], [0057-0060], and [0064-0068]).
Gaither do not specifically disclose receiving, for at least one road segments in which the restricted lane is adjacent and parallel to an unrestricted lane, vehicle location information and corresponding vehicle speed information; processing, by a machine-learning technique, the vehicle location information and the vehicle speed information do derive lane-specific average speeds; applying the lane-specific average speeds as weights of respective edges in a machine-learning representation of the at least one road segment.
Yang teaches receiving, for at least one road segments in which the restricted lane is adjacent and parallel to an unrestricted lane, vehicle location information and corresponding vehicle speed information (see at least [0011], [0060], and [0063-0066]); processing, by a machine-learning technique, the vehicle location information and the vehicle speed information do derive lane-specific average speeds (see at least [0011], [0061-0062], and [0073-0085]); applying the lane-specific average speeds as weights of respective edges in a machine-learning representation of the at least one road segment (see at least [0011], [0061-0062], and [0073-0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Gaither, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Yang of receiving, for at least one road segments in which the restricted lane is adjacent and parallel to an unrestricted lane, vehicle location information and corresponding vehicle speed information; processing, by a machine-learning technique, the vehicle location information and the vehicle speed information do derive lane-specific average speeds; applying the lane-specific average speeds as weights of respective edges in a machine-learning representation of the at least one road segment. This would be done to provide an accurate representation of routes or route segments traffic flow to users for more convenience of navigation/driving (see Yang para 0002-0005).
With respect to claim 2, Gaither discloses wherein the number of occupants of the vehicle is determined based on information received from a sensor of the vehicle (see at least [0021]).
With respect to claim 3, Gaither discloses wherein the number of occupants of the vehicle is determined based on user input received from a user input device (see at least [0021] and [0025-0029]).
With respect to claim 4, Gaither discloses wherein the user equipment device is a cellular telephone (see at least [0043], “…the navigation system 400 may be a portable, third-party navigation system usable by the user inside or outside the vehicle 490…”).
With respect to claim 5, Gaither discloses wherein the user equipment device is an infotainment system of the vehicle (see at least [0040-0043]).
With respect to claims 13, 14, 15, and 18, they are system claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 1, 2, 3, and 5. As such, claims 13, 14, 15, and 18 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 21, Gaither discloses wherein the processing, the vehicle location information and the vehicle speed information to derive the lane-specific average speeds comprises:(i) grouping the vehicle speed information into at least two modes (see at least [0018], [0032], [0037], [0055-0058], [0067], [0069], and [0072]), (ii) assigning the modes to the restricted lane and to the unrestricted lane at least in part relative position offsets in latitude and longitude with respect to a direction of travel (see at least [0018], [0032], [0037], [0055-0058], [0067], [0069], and [0072]), and(iii) validating the assigning using an unrestricted-to-express volume-ratio estimator (see at least [0018], [0032], [0037], [0055-0058], [0067], [0069], and [0072]).
However, Gaither do not specifically disclose wherein the processing is by the machine-learning technique.
Yang discloses wherein the processing is by the machine-learning technique (see at least [0011], [0061-0062], and [0073-0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Gaither, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Yang wherein the processing is by the machine-learning technique. This would be done to provide an accurate representation of routes or route segments traffic flow to users for more convenience of navigation/driving (see Yang para 0002-0005).
With respect to claim 22, Gaither discloses wherein the assigning the modes to the restricted lane and to the unrestricted lane comprises information indicating that the at least one road segment is substantially north-south or east-west (see at least [0075]).
With respect to claim 23, Gaither do not specifically disclose wherein the machine-learning technique generates a confidence score for the lane-specific average speeds, the method further comprising: based at least in part on determining the confidence score falling below a threshold, applying a unified segment speed for the lane-specific average speeds as the weights of the respective edges in the machine-learning representation of the at least one road segment.
Yang teaches wherein the machine-learning technique generates a confidence score for the lane-specific average speeds, the method further comprising: based at least in part on determining the confidence score falling below a threshold, applying a unified segment speed for the lane-specific average speeds as the weights of the respective edges in the machine-learning representation of the at least one road segment (see at least [0011], [0061-0062], and [0073-0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Gaither, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Yang wherein the machine-learning technique generates a confidence score for the lane-specific average speeds, the method further comprising: based at least in part on determining the confidence score falling below a threshold, applying a unified segment speed for the lane-specific average speeds as the weights of the respective edges in the machine-learning representation of the at least one road segment. This would be done to provide an accurate representation of routes or route segments traffic flow to users for more convenience of navigation/driving (see Yang para 0002-0005).
With respect to claim 24, Gaither discloses determining, based at least in part the vehicle location information, that the vehicle enters the restricted lane at a recommended entry location or exits the restricted lane at a recommended exit location (see at least [0020] and [0056]); and based at least in part on determining non-compliance with the recommended entry location or the recommended exit location: recalculating the second travel duration by replacing edge weights for the restricted lane with edge weights for the unrestricted lane for the affected segment (see at least [0020], [0037], [0055-0057], and [0064-0068]); and based at least in part on the recalculated second travel duration, updating the navigational directions (see at least [0020], [0037], [0055-0057], and [0064-0068]).
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaither (US 20170284814 A1) in view of Yang (US 20190310100 A1) in view of Torrealba Fuenzalida et al (US 20210042671 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Gaither as modified by Yang do not specifically disclose wherein the user equipment device is a switchable transponder.
Torrealba teaches wherein the user equipment device is a switchable transponder (see at least [0100] and [0170]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Gaither and Yang, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Cohen wherein the user equipment device is a switchable transponder. This would be done to reduce the congestion of routes or highway routes by alleviating traffic congestion prior to the event of congestion (see Torrealba para 0003-0005).
With respect to claim 20, it is a system claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 6. As such, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claim 20 and is incorporated herein.
Claims 7-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaither (US 20170284814 A1) in view of Yang (US 20190310100 A1) in view of Cohen et al (US 20220187083 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Gaither as modified by Yang do not specifically disclose determining whether any road segments of the plurality of road segments include toll restricted lanes having a toll-based restriction; in response to determining that at least one road segment of the plurality of road segments includes a toll restricted lane having the toll-based restriction: determining whether a third travel duration for the vehicle to travel from the start location to the destination using the toll restricted lane is less than the first travel duration; in response to determining that the third travel duration is less than the first travel duration, displaying, at the user equipment device, navigational directions from the start location to the destination that include the toll restricted lane; and in response to determining that the third travel duration is greater than the first travel duration, displaying, at the user equipment device, navigational directions from the start location to the destination that do not include the toll restricted lane.
Cohen teaches determining whether any road segments of the plurality of road segments include toll restricted lanes having a toll-based restriction (see at least [0039-0041], [0053], and [0059-0065]); in response to determining that at least one road segment of the plurality of road segments includes a toll restricted lane having the toll-based restriction: determining whether a third travel duration for the vehicle to travel from the start location to the destination using the toll restricted lane is less than the first travel duration (see at least [0039-0041]); in response to determining that the third travel duration is less than the first travel duration, displaying, at the user equipment device, navigational directions from the start location to the destination that include the toll restricted lane (see at least [0039-0041] and [0051-0052]); and in response to determining that the third travel duration is greater than the first travel duration, displaying, at the user equipment device, navigational directions from the start location to the destination that do not include the toll restricted lane (see at least [0039-0041] and [0051-0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Gaither as modified by Yang, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Cohen of determining whether any road segments of the plurality of road segments include toll restricted lanes having a toll-based restriction; in response to determining that at least one road segment of the plurality of road segments includes a toll restricted lane having the toll-based restriction: determining whether a third travel duration for the vehicle to travel from the start location to the destination using the toll restricted lane is less than the first travel duration; in response to determining that the third travel duration is less than the first travel duration, displaying, at the user equipment device, navigational directions from the start location to the destination that include the toll restricted lane; and in response to determining that the third travel duration is greater than the first travel duration, displaying, at the user equipment device, navigational directions from the start location to the destination that do not include the toll restricted lane. This would be done to improve selection or generation of a route to meet criteria of users and such increase user’s convenience (see Cohen para 0003-0005).
With respect to claim 8, Gaither discloses wherein displaying navigational directions from the start location to the destination that include the toll restricted lane is further based on a user profile associated with the user equipment device (see at least [0021] and [0025-0029]).
With respect to claims 16 and 17, they are system claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 7 and 8. As such, claims 16 and 17 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claims 7 and 8 and are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in the office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667