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 .
This office action is in response to claim amendment filed on March 30, 2026 and wherein claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 15, 18 have been amended and claims 6, 14 have been cancelled.
In virtue of this communication claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-20 are currently pending in this Office
Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 7-9, 11, 15, 16-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-13, 15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 20230194274 A1), hereinafter Song, in view of Linder (US 20170309172 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches an evaluation system that determines a network connectivity performance road map, the evaluation system comprising:
one or more back-end servers in wireless communication with a plurality of vehicles located in a geographic region by a wireless communication network, wherein the plurality of vehicles collect a plurality of overall performance metrics of the wireless communication network; (paragraph 0019 - “The navigation service may be associated with a server system. The server system can receive network connectivity data from a plurality of computing devices. For example, a plurality of computing devices (e.g., smartphones, laptop computers, tablet computing devices, and stand-alone GPS systems) can periodically measure one or more network characteristics (e.g., network signal strength (e.g. RSSI), data throughput rate, a failure rate associated with network connectivity, and so on). A computing device can include a modem or other network communication device. This network communication device can include the capability to detect one or more network characteristics. Each time the user computing device measures one or more network connectivity characteristics the user computing device can also record its current geographic location.” Paragraph 0044 - Such devices may, for example, include devices which are integrated into the user's vehicle as part of on-board equipment, in addition to handheld or otherwise portable devices.”)
and one or more road map databases in electronic communication with the one or more back-end servers, wherein the one or more road map databases store a map data road graph of the geographic region including a plurality of nodes connected by a plurality of edges and one or more statistical measures corresponding to the plurality of overall performance metrics of the wireless communication network for each of the plurality of nodes, and wherein the one or more back-end servers execute instructions to: (paragraph 0023 - grouping connectivity data into geographic regions with multiple data points):
calculate the one or more statistical measures corresponding to the plurality of overall performance metrics of the wireless communication network for each of the plurality of edges of the map data road graph of the geographic region; (paragraph 0023 – “The received information can be stored in a database associated with the server system that stores the network connectivity data and can be grouped based on a plurality of specific geographic areas. In some examples, the server system can group connectivity data into a plurality of geographic sub-areas, such that a given area of a geographic map can have multiple recorded data points for predicting one or more connectivity metrics for that geographic area.”)
and determine the network connectivity performance road map of the geographical region based on the one or more statistical measures corresponding to the plurality of overall performance metrics for each of the plurality of nodes and each of the plurality of edges. (paragraph 0027 – “The connectivity metrics can include an expected data throughput value. An expected data throughput value can measure the total amount of data that can be transmitted to or from a computing device over a particular wireless network during a particular period.”, paragraph 0023 – “The received information can be stored in a database associated with the server system that stores the network connectivity data and can be grouped based on a plurality of specific geographic areas.”)
receive, from one of the vehicles, a route request including a start location and an end destination; (paragraph 0052 – implementing turn by turn directions from a current or provided location to a destination location)
in response to receiving the route request, calculate a distance cost for each of the plurality of edges that are part of the network connectivity performance road map; and (paragraph 0055 – route optimized for minimizing total driving distance)
calculate a time cost for each of the plurality of edges that are part of the network connectivity performance road map (paragraph 0066 – potential route criteria can include time cost)
Song fails to teach: wherein a weight value associated with the time cost is greater than a weight value associated with the distance cost
Linder teaches: wherein a weight value associated with the time cost is greater than a weight value associated with the distance cost (paragraph 0039, Figure 2, Label A220 – The route is optimized according to the weighting of nodes, the weighting of nodes may prioritize the shortest travel time as the best route.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Song to incorporate the time cost having a greater weighing than distance cost teachings of Linder. The purpose of doing so is to determine the faster possible travel times within an area by examining the congestion at each node (Linder paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 2, Song teaches: The evaluation system of claim 1, further comprising: one or more one or more network servers in wireless communication with the one or more back-end servers by the wireless communication network, wherein the one or more network servers transmit live network performance data of the wireless communication network to the one or more back-end servers. (Figure 2 – Device transmitting network connectivity data to a back end server. paragraph 0078 – “In this example, one or more devices can collect data about one or more network parameters. This network parameter data 208 can be transferred from the device 202-1 to a remote server computing system through a network.”)
Regarding claim 3, Song teaches: The evaluation system of claim 2, wherein the one or more back-end servers execute instructions to:
annotate each of the plurality of nodes that are part of the network connectivity performance road map with the live network performance data of the wireless communication network. (paragraph 0023 – “The received information can be stored in a database associated with the server system that stores the network connectivity data and can be grouped based on a plurality of specific geographic areas. In some examples, the server system can group connectivity data into a plurality of geographic sub-areas, such that a given area of a geographic map can have multiple recorded data points for predicting one or more connectivity metrics for that geographic area.”)
Regarding claim 4, Song teaches: The evaluation system of claim 1, wherein the one or more back-end servers execute instructions to:
receive, from a vehicle that is part of the plurality of vehicles, a navigational request for one of the following: the network connectivity performance road map of the geographical region and a navigational route calculated based on the network connectivity performance road map; (paragraph 0030 - user requesting navigation route, paragraph 0034 – the navigation route based on the network connectivity of the route)
and transmit either the network connectivity performance road map or the navigational route over the wireless communication network to the vehicle that transmitted the navigational request. (paragraph 0038 – the route being transmitted over wireless communication back to the users device)
Regarding claim 5, Song teaches:
The evaluation system of claim 1, wherein the one or more back-end servers calculate the one or more statistical measures corresponding to the plurality of overall performance metrics of the wireless communication network for each of the plurality of edges of the map data road graph of the geographic region by:
averaging of the one or more statistical measures corresponding to the plurality of overall performance metrics for two neighboring nodes connected to one another by a single edge; (paragraph 0073 –taking collected connectivity data over a particular geographic area and creating a geographic sub-area with one or more average estimated network connectivity values)
and assigning an average value for the two neighboring nodes to the single edge. (paragraph 0074 – storing average connection metrics in a connectivity data store for a particular geographic sub-area)
Regarding claim 7, Song teaches: The evaluation system of claim 1, wherein the one or more back-end servers execute instructions to:
combine the distance cost and the time cost together based on the weight value associated with the distance cost and the weight value associated with the time cost to determine a basic edge cost associated with each of the edges that are part of the network connectivity performance road map; (paragraph 0038 – suggesting routes based on minimization of certain criteria such as time, connection quality and distance, paragraph 0039 – detailing how a user can optimize time, connection quality or distance during route generation)
and determine one or more basic route plans by minimizing the basic edge cost associated with each of the edges located between the start location and the end destination of the route request. (paragraph 0039 – detailing how a user can optimize time, connection quality or distance during route generation)
Regarding claim 10, Song teaches: The evaluation system of claim 1, wherein the overall performance metrics of the wireless communication network include one or more of the following: an end-to-end latency, wireless communication latency, network bandwidth, bandwidth utilization, jitter, server computational time, server resource utilization, server geographic location, server hardware, and a geographic location of a specific vehicle collecting the corresponding overall performance data (paragraph 0072 – “In some examples, the connectivity data can include data describing the particular network technology available at a given location (e.g., 5G cellular technology, Wi-Fi, and so on), signal strength for each available wireless network type, the packet loss rate, data throughput, band, bandwidth, and carrier aggregation information.”)
Regarding claim 18, Song teaches: An evaluation system that determines a network connectivity performance road map, the evaluation system comprising:
one or more back-end servers in wireless communication with a plurality of vehicles located in a geographic region by a wireless communication network, wherein the plurality of vehicles collect a plurality of overall performance metrics of the wireless communication network; (paragraph 0019 – describes computing devices can measure network characteristics, paragraph 0044 – computing devices include user’s vehicle as part of on-board equipment)
one or more one or more network servers in wireless communication with the one or more back-end servers by the wireless communication network, wherein the one or more network servers transmit live network performance data of the wireless communication network to the one or more back-end servers; and (Figure 2 – Device transmitting network connectivity data to a back end server, paragraph 0078 – Devices can collect data about network parameters and transfer that data from the device to a remote server computing system through a network)
one or more road map databases in electronic communication with the one or more back-end servers, wherein the one or more road map databases store a map data road graph of the geographic region including a plurality of nodes connected by a plurality of edges and one or more statistical measures corresponding to the plurality of overall performance metrics of the wireless communication network for each of the plurality of nodes, and wherein the one or more back-end servers execute instructions to: (paragraph 0023 - grouping connectivity data into geographic regions with multiple data points):
receive, from a vehicle that is part of the plurality of vehicles, a navigational request for one of the following: the network connectivity performance road map of the geographical region and a navigational route calculated based on the network connectivity performance road map; (paragraph 0030 - user requesting navigation route, paragraph 0034 – the navigation route based on the network connectivity of the route)
in response to receiving the navigational request, calculate the one or more statistical measures corresponding to the plurality of overall performance metrics of the wireless communication network for each of the plurality of edges of the map data road graph of the geographic region; (paragraph 0024-- server system analyzes data and generates connectivity metrics)
receive, from one of the vehicles, a route request including a start location and an end destination; (paragraph 0052 – implementing turn by turn directions from a current or provided location to a destination location)
in response to receiving the route request, calculate a distance cost for each of the plurality of edges that are part of the network connectivity performance road map; and (paragraph 0055 – route optimized for minimizing total driving distance)
calculate a time cost for each of the plurality of edges that are part of the network connectivity performance road map (paragraph 0066 – potential route criteria can include time cost)
combining the distance cost and the time cost together based on the weight value associated with the distance cost and the weight value associated with the time cost to determine a basic edge cost associated with each of the edges that are part of the network connectivity performance road map; (paragraph 0038 – suggesting routes based on minimization of certain criteria such as time, connection quality and distance, paragraph 0039 – detailing how a user can optimize time, connection quality or distance during route generation)
determining one or more basic route plans by minimizing the basic edge cost associated with each of the edges located between the start location and the end destination of the route request; (paragraph 0039 – detailing how a user can optimize time, connection quality or distance during route generation)
determine the network connectivity performance road map of the geographical region based on the one or more statistical measures corresponding to the plurality of overall performance metrics for each of the plurality of nodes and each of the plurality of edges; (paragraph 0027 – Excepted data throughput value generated from a computing device over a particular network, paragraph 0023 – grouping connectivity data into geographic regions with multiple data points.)
annotate each of the plurality of nodes that are part of the network connectivity performance road map with the live network performance data of the wireless communication network; (paragraph 0023 – “The received information can be stored in a database associated with the server system that stores the network connectivity data and can be grouped based on a plurality of specific geographic areas. In some examples, the server system can group connectivity data into a plurality of geographic sub-areas, such that a given area of a geographic map can have multiple recorded data points for predicting one or more connectivity metrics for that geographic area.”)
and transmit the network connectivity performance road map over the wireless communication network to the vehicle that transmitted the navigational request. (paragraph 0038 – the route being transmitted over wireless communication back to the users device)
Song fails to teach: wherein a weight value associated with the time cost is greater than a weight value associated with the distance cost
Linder teaches: wherein a weight value associated with the time cost is greater than a weight value associated with the distance cost (paragraph 0039, Figure 2, Label A220 – The route is optimized according to the weighting of nodes, the weighting of nodes may prioritize the shortest travel time as the best route.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Song to incorporate the time cost having a greater weighing than distance cost teachings of Linder. The purpose of doing so is to determine the faster possible travel times within an area by examining the congestion at each node (Linder paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 19, Song teaches: The evaluation system of claim 18, wherein the one or more back-end servers calculate the one or more statistical measures corresponding to the plurality of overall performance metrics of the wireless communication network for each of the plurality of edges of the map data road graph of the geographic region by:
averaging of the one or more statistical measures corresponding to the plurality of overall performance metrics for two neighboring nodes connected to one another by a single edge; (paragraph 0073 –taking collected connectivity data over a particular geographic area and creating a geographic sub-area with one or more average estimated network connectivity values)
and assigning an average value for the two neighboring nodes to the single edge. (paragraph 0074 – storing average connection metrics in a connectivity data store for a particular geographic sub-area)
Regarding claim 20, Song teaches: The evaluation system of claim 18, wherein the overall performance metrics of the wireless communication network include one or more of the following: an end-to-end latency, wireless communication latency, network bandwidth, bandwidth utilization, jitter, server computational time, server resource utilization, server geographic location, and a geographic location of a specific vehicle collecting the corresponding overall performance data. (paragraph 0072 – “In some examples, the connectivity data can include data describing the particular network technology available at a given location (e.g., 5G cellular technology, Wi-Fi, and so on), signal strength for each available wireless network type, the packet loss rate, data throughput, band, bandwidth, and carrier aggregation information.”)
Claim 11 is a method that is the combination of claims 1 and 4 and is analyzed and rejected according to claims 1 and 4.
Claim 12 is a method of claim 2, thus is analyzed and rejected according to claim 2.
Claim 13 is a method of claim 3, thus is analyzed and rejected according to claim 3.
Claim 15 is a method of claim 7, thus is analyzed and rejected according to claim 7.
Claims 8, 9, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Linder further in view of Annapureddy et al. (US 20140247695 A1, hereinafter Annapureddy)
Regarding claim 8, Song and Linder fail to teach:
The evaluation system of claim 7, wherein the one or more back-end servers execute instructions to:
in response to receiving the route request, calculate an offloading cost for each of the plurality of edges that are part of the network connectivity performance road map;
and calculate a network live latency cost for each of the plurality of edges that are part of the network connectivity performance road map.
Annapureddy teaches:
The evaluation system of claim 7, wherein the one or more back-end servers execute instructions to:
in response to receiving the route request, calculate an offloading cost for each of the plurality of edges that are part of the network connectivity performance road map; (paragraph 0056 - “In some embodiments, prior to computing the navigation route, the mobile device 104 may present the user with QoS priority level options 610 for which to base the navigation route on.” paragraph 0056 - “Optimal performance may be considered as the application providing the intended experience to the user (e.g., with low latency, high throughput, low dropped packets, low errors, low jitter, in-order-delivery, etc.).”)
and calculate a network live latency cost for each of the plurality of edges that are part of the network connectivity performance road map. (paragraph 0056 - “Optimal performance may be considered as the application providing the intended experience to the user (e.g., with low latency, high throughput, low dropped packets, low errors, low jitter, in-order-delivery, etc.).”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Song and Linder to incorporate the teachings of Annapureddy regarding the network latency. Doing so would allow a user to select to choose a navigation option increase their quality of network service for instances during which low latency navigation may be needed, as suggested by Annapureddy (paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 9, Song fails to teach:
The evaluation system of claim 8, wherein the one or more back-end servers execute instructions to:
combine the offloading cost and the network live latency cost together based on a weight value associated with the offloading cost and the weight value associated with the network live latency cost to determine a network performance edge cost associated with each of the plurality of edges that are part of the network connectivity performance road map, wherein the weight value associated with the offloading cost is greater than the weight value associated with the network live latency cost; and
determine one or more network performance-based route plans by minimizing the network performance edge cost associated with each of the plurality of edges located between the start location and the end destination of the route request.
Linder teaches: wherein the weight value associated with the offloading cost is greater than the weight value associated with the network live latency cost; (paragraph 0039, Figure 2, Label A220 – The route is optimized according to the weighting of nodes, the weighting of nodes may prioritize the shortest travel time as the best route.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Song to incorporate the time cost having a greater weighing than distance cost teachings of Linder. The purpose of doing so is to determine the faster possible travel times within an area by examining the congestion at each node (Linder paragraph 0021).
Linder fails to teach:
combine the offloading cost and the network live latency cost together based on a weight value associated with the offloading cost and the weight value associated with the network live latency cost to determine a network performance edge cost associated with each of the plurality of edges that are part of the network connectivity performance road map,
and determine one or more network performance-based route plans by minimizing the network performance edge cost associated with each of the plurality of edges located between the start location and the end destination of the route request.
Annapureddy teaches: combine the offloading cost and the network live latency cost together based on a weight value associated with the offloading cost and the weight value associated with the network live latency cost to determine a network performance edge cost associated with each of the plurality of edges that are part of the network connectivity performance road map,
(paragraph 0056 – “In some embodiments, if a user chooses a high QoS priority level for the navigation route, the mobile device 104 may take into account the periodically received network accessibility information from the centralized database (FIG. 2) to provide the user with the navigation route.”)
and determine one or more network performance-based route plans by minimizing the network performance edge cost associated with each of the plurality of edges located between the start location and the end destination of the route request. (paragraph 0056 – “For example, the navigation route for a high QoS priority level may avoid dead-zones and route the user through only high-bandwidth wireless network zones (e.g., LTE and Wi-Fi networks”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Song and Linder to incorporate the teachings of Annapureddy regarding the network latency. Doing so would allow a user to select to choose a navigation option increase their quality of network service for instances during which low latency navigation may be needed, as suggested by Annapureddy (paragraph 0002).
Claim 16 is a method of claim 8, thus is analyzed and rejected according to claim 8.
Claim 17 is a method of claim 9, thus is analyzed and rejected according to claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. Shahriari et al. (US 11,987,251 B2), hereinafter Shahriari), describes a vehicle that autonomously navigates using gathered location data and GPS.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Crigler whose telephone number is (571)272-9376. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Jensen can be reached at (571) 270-5443. 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.
/RYAN ALEXANDER CRIGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights