DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This communication is in response to Applicant’s filing dated 04/10/2025. Claims 1-3, 15-17, 19 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicants’ arguments submitted on 04/10/2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are unpersuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 of claim 1, Applicant argues the claims are eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two because the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application and the claims recite a technical improvement that confers eligibility under Step 2A.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The same updated analysis based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) applies to the newly added claimed limitations as discussed in the previous office action.
As a result, Step 2A Prong 1 determines if a claim is directed to those grouping and subgroupings along with an explanation of why it is directed to such.
“First, the rejection should identify the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG, laws of nature, or a natural phenomenon) by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explaining why it is considered to be an exception (Step 2A Prong One). There is no requirement for the examiner to provide further support, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), for the conclusion that a claim recites a judicial exception.”
“For abstract ideas, the rejection should explain why a specific limitation(s) recited in the claim falls within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity) or provide a justification for why a specific limitation(s) recited in the claim is being treated as an abstract idea if it does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in accordance with the “tentative abstract idea” procedure in the 2019 PEG.”
In the Non-Final mailed 01/10/2025 examiner performs the analysis and clarifies that “the abstract idea noted in the independent claims…are directed to a “Mental Processes.” Hence, examiner has indicated that these identified limitations are directed to a mental process and has provided a justification for why these limitations fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (i.e. concepts performed in the human mind). This is sufficient under the guidelines of the 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update as cited above. Accordingly, it seems reasonable for the examiner to group the abstract idea under “Mental processes.” as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG.
Prong Two:
With respect to Step 2A, prong two, Integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f).
In contrast, the instant claims are different, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem.
Examiner submits that under the current 35 USC 101 examining practice, the existence of such novel features would still not cure the deficiencies with respect to the abstract idea. See for example: Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750, U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, No. 2010-1544, Decided November 14, 2014, 2014 BL 320546, 772 F.3d 709, Page 1754 last two ¶ : Indeed, in this in instant case, the limitations simply narrow or limit the abstract idea without providing anything significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Lastly, dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic processor to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
Examiner notes the same arguments apply to independent claims 15 and 19.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
4. Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hawkins et al., US 8976063 B1, in view of Cui et al., US 20170219360 A1, in view of Horihata et al., US 20160091324 A1 and in view Skinder et al., US 20140232570 A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
Step 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
Step 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A method comprising, by a computing system:
receiving historical data of a plurality of vehicles that traveled in an area, the historical data including a sequence of location datapoints and a sequence of motion-data points for each vehicle in the plurality of vehicles that traveled in the area [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensor];
determining, for each vehicle in the plurality of vehicles, a motion-data trace of a path traveled by that vehicle in the area based on the sequence of motion-data points associated with that vehicle [mental process/step];
generating, for each vehicle in the plurality of vehicles, an estimated path traveled by that vehicle based on the sequence of location data points and the motion-data trace of the path associated with that vehicle [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results)]; and
generating a plurality of average paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles based on the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results)]];
determining a current location of a subject vehicle, wherein the current location is within the area [mental process/step];
selecting, in response to a determination that the current location is within the area, an average path corresponding to the current location among the plurality of average paths [mental process/step]
sending, to a device associated with the subject vehicle, instructions to navigate from the current location in accordance with the selected average path corresponding to the current location [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results)]].
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claim 1 recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A, Prong one evaluation: Judicial exception – Yes- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
The office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of determining, for each vehicle in the plurality of vehicles, a motion-data trace of a path traveled by that vehicle in the area based on the sequence of motion-data points associated with that vehicle; determining a current location of a subject vehicle, wherein the current location is within the area; selecting, in response to a determination that the current location is within the area, an average path corresponding to the current location among the plurality of average paths. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “computing system” That is, other than reciting “computing system” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computing system” That is, other than reciting “computing system”, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of sensor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of computing system. In particular, the “computing system” limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component
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.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e. whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Twp, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the computing system were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity 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 recites that “The sensor data may be obtained from sensors on the computing device, and may include gyroscope data, accelerometer data, barometer sensor data, compass data or any other suitable sensor data” (See ¶17 of applicant’s specification), and further does not provide any indication that the computing units are anything other than conventional computer element(s) (See ¶18 of applicant’s specification). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, the claim is ineligible.
The independent system claim 15 recites similar limitations performed by the device of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 outlined above.
The independent medium claim 19 recites similar limitations performed by the device of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 outlined above.
Dependent claim(s) 2-14, 16-18 and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-14, 16-18 and 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 15 and 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins et al., US 8976063 B1, in view of Cui et al., US 20170219360 A1 and in view Skinder et al., US 20140232570 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hawkins, Cui and Skinder, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Hawkins discloses a method comprising, by a computing device:
receiving historical data of a plurality of vehicles that traveled in an area, the historical data including a sequence of location data points and a sequence of motion-data points for each vehicle in the plurality of vehicles that traveled in the area (Positioning system 12 may determine a relative location and/or perform location multilateration to determine a current location. Positioning system 12 may determine location data as coordinate location data – See at least column 5 lines 51-57. Motion sensor 24 may measure motion information associated with mobile computing device 4. Motion sensor 24 may output measured motion data to one or more components of mobile computing device 4 – See at least column 11 lines 20-29. A position history of mobile computing device. The position history may include a plurality of previously determined reference positions of mobile computing device – See at least column 18, lines 60-65);
determining, for each vehicle in the plurality of vehicles, a motion-data trace of a path traveled by that vehicle in the area based on the sequence of motion-data points associated with that vehicle (In addition to determining the current position of mobile computing device 4, positioning system 12 may also determine a current heading of mobile computing device 4. Parking module 16 may generate, based on the second motion data, a path i.e. motion-data trace of a path, of mobile computing device 4 by at least analyzing the second motion data relative to the current position of mobile computing device 4 and the current heading of mobile computing device 4 – See at least column 24 lines 35-42).
Hawkins fails to explicitly disclose generating, for each vehicle in the plurality of vehicles, an estimated path traveled by that vehicle based on the sequence of location data points and the motion-data trace of the path associated with that vehicle.
However, Cui teaches:
generating, for each vehicle in the plurality of vehicles, an estimated path traveled by that vehicle based on the sequence of location data points and the motion-data trace of the path associated with that vehicle (Each of the points, i.e. location points, in the simplified GPS path of travel and the map matched path of travel are associated with time stamps. The selection module 205 determines the similarity between the simplified GPS path of travel and its associated portion in the map matched path of travel, i.e. motion-data trace of a path, by determining time stamps from the simplified GPS path of travel that are a relative match with time stamps from the map matched path of travel. For each pair of matching time stamps, the selection module 205 determines the distance between the simplified GPS path of travel and the map matched path of travel. The selection module 205 then calculates the average of the distances – See at least ¶70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hawkins and include the feature of generating, for each vehicle in the plurality of vehicles, an estimated path traveled by that vehicle based on the sequence of location data points and the motion-data trace of the path associated with that vehicle, as taught by Cui, to improve inaccurate GPS data that is representative of a location of a location tracking device.
The combination of Hawkins and Cui fails to explicitly disclose generating a plurality of average paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles based on the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles; determining a current location of a subject vehicle, wherein the current location is within the area; selecting, in response to a determination that the current location is within the area, an average path corresponding to the current location among the plurality of average paths.
However, Horihata teaches:
generating a plurality of average paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles based on the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles (The generation section includes an estimation section that estimates partial travel routes, i.e. average paths traveled, indicative of parts of the new travel route based on the off-route location information data and the direction information data indicative of the traveling direction at each location indicated by the off-route location information data – See at least ¶7); and
determining a current location of a subject vehicle, wherein the current location is within the area (The location detection portion measures the absolute location of a host vehicle (a vehicle in which the in-vehicle apparatus is mounted). The present embodiment measures the latitude, longitude, and altitude of the host vehicle by using a global positioning system (GPS) receiver that receives signals transmitted from GPS satellites – See at least ¶26);
selecting, in response to a determination that the current location is within the area, an average path corresponding to the current location among the plurality of average paths (The control circuit generates simple travel paths T1, T2, T3 of the vehicles by sequentially joining, with line segments, successive location measurement points of each vehicle, which are indicated by the off-route path data. The control circuit then generates an average travel path (a travel path indicative of a new travel route) on the basis of the generated travel paths and calculates the length of the travel path between the point of leaving the existing travel route and the point of entering the existing travel route– See at least ¶46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hawkins and Cui and include the feature of generating a plurality of average paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles based on the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles; determining a current location of a subject vehicle, wherein the current location is within the area; selecting, in response to a determination that the current location is within the area, an average path corresponding to the current location among the plurality of average paths, as taught by Horihata, to improve inaccurate GPS data that is representative of a location of a location tracking device.
The combination of Hawkins, Cui and Horihata fails to explicitly disclose sending, to a device associated with the subject vehicle, instructions to navigate from the current location in accordance with the selected average path corresponding to the current location.
However, Skinder teaches sending, to a device associated with the subject vehicle, instructions to navigate from the current location in accordance with the selected average path corresponding to the current location (a mobile device is inside of a car and the location of the mobile device is determined periodically. In FIG. 5, the location at an initial time is shown by car position. The location information for car position may be any suitable location data, including geographic coordinates – See at least ¶113. After an initial time when the location of the car is known, the car can travel along a driving path - See at least 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hawkins, Cui and Horihata and include the feature of sending, to a device associated with the subject vehicle, instructions to navigate from the current location in accordance with the selected average path corresponding to the current location, as taught by Skinder, to allow a user of a mobile device to locate various places of interest with location-based services.
Regarding claim 2, Hawkins fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of average paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles is generated based on averaging location coordinates of the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles.
However, Cui teaches wherein the plurality of average paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles is generated based on averaging location coordinates of the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles (a historical GPS database 115 stores final paths of travel of trips completed by transportation vehicles. Thus, the historical GPS database 115 stores a history of trips (e.g., the paths of travel) completed by different transportation vehicles. In one embodiment, the historical GPS database 115 stores GPS coordinates of the transportation vehicles used to complete the trips specified in the GPS database 115. The GPS coordinates may be stored in a list or table form – See at least ¶81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hawkins and include the feature of wherein the plurality of average paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles is generated based on averaging location coordinates of the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles, as taught by Cui, to improve inaccurate GPS data that is representative of a location of a location tracking device.
Regarding claim 3, Hawkins fails to explicitly disclose generating a behavioral map based on the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles, the behavioral map being configured to be overlaid on a street map presented on the device associated with the subject vehicle.
However, Cui teaches generating a behavioral map based on the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles, the behavioral map being configured to be overlaid on a street map presented on the device associated with the subject vehicle (Alternatively, the pickup location of the service requestor device 103 may be manually inputted into the service requestor device 103 by the user of the device 103, such as by selecting a location on a map or in the form of an address including at least a street number and street name – See at least ¶26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hawkins and include the feature of generating a behavioral map based on the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles, the behavioral map being configured to be overlaid on a street map presented on the device associated with the driver of the subject vehicle, as taught by Cui, to improve inaccurate GPS data that is representative of a location of a location tracking device.
Regarding claim 4, Hawkins fails to explicitly disclose determining, for each vehicle in the plurality of vehicles, whether each location data point in the sequence of location data points is accurate based on a distance between that location data point and a corresponding point in the motion-data trace of the path, wherein the estimated path traveled by the vehicle is generated based on the location data points that are accurate and corresponding points in the motion-data trace of the path corresponding to the location data points that are inaccurate.
However, Cui teaches determining, for each vehicle in the plurality of vehicles, whether each location data point in the sequence of location data points is accurate based on a distance between that location data point and a corresponding point in the motion-data trace of the path, wherein the estimated path traveled by the vehicle is generated based on the location data points that are accurate and corresponding points in the motion-data trace of the path corresponding to the location data points that are inaccurate (the accuracy of a GPS point is based on a position estimation error of the GPS point. The position estimation error of the GPS point describes the deviation in distance (e.g., meters) between the GPS point and its corresponding point in the map matched path of travel for the trip. In one embodiment, a GPS point that is within a threshold distance (e.g., 5 meters) from its corresponding point in the map matched path of travel for the trip is considered accurate by the detection module 203. Conversely, a GPS point that is located at a position greater than the threshold distance from its corresponding point in the map matched path of travel for the trip is considered a candidate for being inaccurate – See at least ¶42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hawkins and include the feature of determining, for each vehicle in the plurality of vehicles, whether each location data point in the sequence of location data points is accurate based on a distance between that location data point and a corresponding point in the motion-data trace of the path, wherein the estimated path traveled by the vehicle is generated based on the location data points that are accurate and corresponding points in the motion-data trace of the path corresponding to the location data points that are inaccurate, as taught by Cui, to improve inaccurate GPS data that is representative of a location of a location tracking device.
Regarding claim 5, Hawkins discloses wherein the corresponding point in the motion-data trace of the path is a closest point in the motion-data trace of the path to the location data point (In addition to determining the current position of mobile computing device 4, positioning system 12 may also determine a current heading of mobile computing device 4. Parking module 16 may generate, based on the second motion data, a path i.e. motion-data trace of a path, of mobile computing device 4 by at least analyzing the second motion data relative to the current position of mobile computing device 4 and the current heading of mobile computing device 4 – See at least column 24 lines 35-42).
Regarding claim 6, Hawkins fails to explicitly disclose removing the location data points that are inaccurate from the sequence of location data points.
However, Cui teaches removing the location data points that are inaccurate from the sequence of location data points (The path creation module 205 may determine that a sequence of GPS points results from the transportation vehicle being stationary by taking into account probable distributions of inherent GPS noise in the GPS data received from the location tracking device 101. The path creation module 205 removes points whose distribution matches those characteristics of a stationary vehicle more closely than a moving vehicle – See at least ¶47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hawkins and include the feature of removing the location data points that are inaccurate from the sequence of location data points, as taught by Cui, to improve inaccurate GPS data that is representative of a location of a location tracking device.
Regarding claim 7, Hawkins fails to explicitly disclose determining a first turn angle based on the location data point that is accurate; determining a second turn angle based on the corresponding point in the motion-data trace of the path corresponding to the location data point that is inaccurate; and determining a turn trajectory of the vehicle based on the first turn angle and the second turn angle.
However, Cui teaches determining a first turn angle based on the location data point that is accurate; determining a second turn angle based on the corresponding point in the motion-data trace of the path corresponding to the location data point that is inaccurate; and determining a turn trajectory of the vehicle based on the first turn angle and the second turn angle (the accuracy of a GPS point is based on a position estimation error of the GPS point. The position estimation error of the GPS point describes the deviation in distance (e.g., meters) between the GPS point and its corresponding point in the map matched path of travel for the trip. In one embodiment, a GPS point that is within a threshold distance (e.g., 5 meters) from its corresponding point in the map matched path of travel for the trip is considered accurate by the detection module 203. Conversely, a GPS point that is located at a position greater than the threshold distance from its corresponding point in the map matched path of travel for the trip is considered a candidate for being inaccurate – See at least ¶42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hawkins and include the feature of determining a first turn angle based on the location data point that is accurate; determining a second turn angle based on the corresponding point in the motion-data trace of the path corresponding to the location data point that is inaccurate; and determining a turn trajectory of the vehicle based on the first turn angle and the second turn angle, as taught by Cui, to improve inaccurate GPS data that is representative of a location of a location tracking device.
Regarding claim 8, Hawkins fails to explicitly disclose for each motion-data point in the sequence of motion-data points, determining a delta turn angle between that motion-data point and a previous motion-data point in the sequence of motion- data points.
However, Cui teaches for each motion-data point in the sequence of motion-data points, determining a delta turn angle between that motion-data point and a previous motion-data point in the sequence of motion- data points (the set of rules may also include a “turn” rule. The turn rule disfavors a simplified GPS path of travel that involves frequent turns. To determine whether the turn rule is satisfied, the selection module 205 determines for each turn in the simplified GPS path of travel the distance between the turn and the next subsequent turn if any. The selection module 205 calculates an average distance traveled between turns and compares the average distance to a threshold – See at least ¶74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hawkins and include the feature of for each motion-data point in the sequence of motion-data points, determining a delta turn angle between that motion-data point and a previous motion-data point in the sequence of motion- data points, as taught by Cui, to improve inaccurate GPS data that is representative of a location of a location tracking device.
Regarding claim 9, Hawkins fails to explicitly disclose determining whether the vehicle is turning based on the delta turn angles.
However, Cui teaches determining whether the vehicle is turning based on the delta turn angles (the set of rules may also include a “turn” rule. The turn rule disfavors a simplified GPS path of travel that involves frequent turns. To determine whether the turn rule is satisfied, the selection module 205 determines for each turn in the simplified GPS path of travel the distance between the turn and the next subsequent turn if any. The selection module 205 calculates an average distance traveled between turns and compares the average distance to a threshold – See at least ¶74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hawkins and include the feature of determining whether the vehicle is turning based on the delta turn angles, as taught by Cui, to improve inaccurate GPS data that is representative of a location of a location tracking device.
Regarding claim 10, Hawkins fails to explicitly disclose generating a turn trajectory traveled by the vehicle based on the delta turn angles.
However, Cui teaches generating a turn trajectory traveled by the vehicle based on the delta turn angles (the set of rules may also include a “turn” rule. The turn rule disfavors a simplified GPS path of travel that involves frequent turns. To determine whether the turn rule is satisfied, the selection module 205 determines for each turn in the simplified GPS path of travel the distance between the turn and the next subsequent turn if any. The selection module 205 calculates an average distance traveled between turns and compares the average distance to a threshold – See at least ¶74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hawkins and include the feature of generating a turn trajectory traveled by the vehicle based on the delta turn angles, as taught by Cui, to improve inaccurate GPS data that is representative of a location of a location tracking device.
Regarding claim 11, Hawkins fails to explicitly disclose for each motion-data point in the sequence of motion-data points, determining a spacing between that motion-data point and a previous motion-data point in the sequence of motion-data points.
However, Cui teaches for each motion-data point in the sequence of motion-data points, determining a spacing between that motion-data point and a previous motion-data point in the sequence of motion-data points (the set of rules may also include a “turn” rule. The turn rule disfavors a simplified GPS path of travel that involves frequent turns. To determine whether the turn rule is satisfied, the selection module 205 determines for each turn in the simplified GPS path of travel the distance between the turn and the next subsequent turn if any. The selection module 205 calculates an average distance traveled between turns and compares the average distance to a threshold – See at least ¶74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hawkins and include the feature of for each motion-data point in the sequence of motion-data points, determining a spacing between that motion-data point and a previous motion-data point in the sequence of motion-data points, as taught by Cui, to improve inaccurate GPS data that is representative of a location of a location tracking device.
Regarding claim 12, Hawkins discloses wherein the sequence of location data points and the sequence of motion-data points are received from different sources associated with the vehicle (In addition to determining the current position of mobile computing device 4, positioning system 12 may also determine a current heading of mobile computing device 4. Parking module 16 may generate, based on the second motion data, a path i.e. motion-data trace of a path, of mobile computing device 4 by at least analyzing the second motion data relative to the current position of mobile computing device 4 and the current heading of mobile computing device 4 – See at least column 24 lines 35-42).
Regarding claim 13, Hawkins discloses wherein the sequence of location data points is determined based on a global positioning system (GPS) associated with the vehicle (positioning system 12 may determine location data as coordinate (e.g., GPS) location data – See at least column 5, lines 55-60).
Regarding claim 14, Hawkins discloses wherein the sequence of motion-data points is determined based on an accelerometer or a gyroscope of a mobile computing device associated with the vehicle (Motion sensor may measure the rotation, velocity and acceleration of mobile device. Examples of one or more sensor may include accelerometer, gyroscope – See at least column 11, lines 20-27).
Regarding claim 15, Hawkins discloses:
receiving historical data of a plurality of vehicles that traveled in an area, the historical data including a sequence of location data points and a sequence of motion-data points for each vehicle in the plurality of vehicles that traveled in the area (Positioning system 12 may determine a relative location and/or perform location multilateration to determine a current location. Positioning system 12 may determine location data as coordinate location data – See at least column 5 lines 51-57. Motion sensor 24 may measure motion information associated with mobile computing device 4. Motion sensor 24 may output measured motion data to one or more components of mobile computing device 4 – See at least column 11 lines 20-29. A position history of mobile computing device. The position history may include a plurality of previously determined reference positions of mobile computing device – See at least column 18, lines 60-65);
determining, for each vehicle in the plurality of vehicles, a motion-data trace of a path traveled by that vehicle in the area based on the sequence of motion-data points associated with that vehicle (In addition to determining the current position of mobile computing device 4, positioning system 12 may also determine a current heading of mobile computing device 4. Parking module 16 may generate, based on the second motion data, a path i.e. motion-data trace of a path, of mobile computing device 4 by at least analyzing the second motion data relative to the current position of mobile computing device 4 and the current heading of mobile computing device 4 – See at least column 24 lines 35-42).
Hawkins fails to explicitly disclose generating, for each vehicle in the plurality of vehicles, an estimated path traveled by that vehicle based on the sequence of location data points and the motion-data trace of the path associated with that vehicle.
However, Cui teaches:
generating, for each vehicle in the plurality of vehicles, an estimated path traveled by that vehicle based on the sequence of location data points and the motion-data trace of the path associated with that vehicle (Each of the points, i.e. location points, in the simplified GPS path of travel and the map matched path of travel are associated with time stamps. The selection module 205 determines the similarity between the simplified GPS path of travel and its associated portion in the map matched path of travel, i.e. motion-data trace of a path, by determining time stamps from the simplified GPS path of travel that are a relative match with time stamps from the map matched path of travel. For each pair of matching time stamps, the selection module 205 determines the distance between the simplified GPS path of travel and the map matched path of travel. The selection module 205 then calculates the average of the distances – See at least ¶70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hawkins and include the feature of generating, for each vehicle in the plurality of vehicles, an estimated path traveled by that vehicle based on the sequence of location data points and the motion-data trace of the path associated with that vehicle, as taught by Cui, to improve inaccurate GPS data that is representative of a location of a location tracking device.
The combination of Hawkins and Cui fails to explicitly disclose generating a plurality of average paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles based on the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles; determining a current location of a subject vehicle, wherein the current location is within the area; selecting, in response to a determination that the current location is within the area, an average path corresponding to the current location among the plurality of average paths.
However, Horihata teaches:
generating a plurality of average paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles based on the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles (The generation section includes an estimation section that estimates partial travel routes, i.e. average paths traveled, indicative of parts of the new travel route based on the off-route location information data and the direction information data indicative of the traveling direction at each location indicated by the off-route location information data – See at least ¶7); and
determining a current location of a subject vehicle, wherein the current location is within the area (The location detection portion measures the absolute location of a host vehicle (a vehicle in which the in-vehicle apparatus is mounted). The present embodiment measures the latitude, longitude, and altitude of the host vehicle by using a global positioning system (GPS) receiver that receives signals transmitted from GPS satellites – See at least ¶26);
selecting, in response to a determination that the current location is within the area, an average path corresponding to the current location among the plurality of average paths (The control circuit generates simple travel paths T1, T2, T3 of the vehicles by sequentially joining, with line segments, successive location measurement points of each vehicle, which are indicated by the off-route path data. The control circuit then generates an average travel path (a travel path indicative of a new travel route) on the basis of the generated travel paths and calculates the length of the travel path between the point of leaving the existing travel route and the point of entering the existing travel route– See at least ¶46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hawkins and Cui and include the feature of generating a plurality of average paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles based on the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles; determining a current location of a subject vehicle, wherein the current location is within the area; selecting, in response to a determination that the current location is within the area, an average path corresponding to the current location among the plurality of average paths, as taught by Horihata, to improve inaccurate GPS data that is representative of a location of a location tracking device.
The combination of Hawkins, Cui and Horihata fails to explicitly disclose sending, to a device associated with the subject vehicle, instructions to navigate from the current location in accordance with the selected average path corresponding to the current location.
However, Skinder teaches sending, to a device associated with the subject vehicle, instructions to navigate from the current location in accordance with the selected average path corresponding to the current location (a mobile device is inside of a car and the location of the mobile device is determined periodically. In FIG. 5, the location at an initial time is shown by car position. The location information for car position may be any suitable location data, including geographic coordinates – See at least ¶113. After an initial time when the location of the car is known, the car can travel along a driving path - See at least 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hawkins, Cui and Horihata and include the feature of sending, to a device associated with the subject vehicle, instructions to navigate from the current location in accordance with the selected average path corresponding to the current location, as taught by Skinder, to allow a user of a mobile device to locate various places of interest with location-based services.
Regarding claim 16, Hawkins fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of average paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles is generated based on averaging location coordinates of the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles.
However, Cui teaches wherein the plurality of average paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles is generated based on averaging location coordinates of the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles (a historical GPS database 115 stores final paths of travel of trips completed by transportation vehicles. Thus, the historical GPS database 115 stores a history of trips (e.g., the paths of travel) completed by different transportation vehicles. In one embodiment, the historical GPS database 115 stores GPS coordinates of the transportation vehicles used to complete the trips specified in the GPS database 115. The GPS coordinates may be stored in a list or table form – See at least ¶81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hawkins and include the feature of wherein the average path traveled by the plurality of vehicles is generated based on averaging location coordinates of the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles, as taught by Cui, to improve inaccurate GPS data that is representative of a location of a location tracking device.
Regarding claim 17, Hawkins fails to explicitly disclose generating a behavioral map based on the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles, the behavioral map being configured to be overlaid on a street map presented on the device associated with the subject vehicle.
However, Cui teaches generating a behavioral map based on the estimated paths traveled by the plurality of vehicles, the behavioral map being configured to be overlaid on a street map presented on the device associated with the subject vehicle (Alternatively, the pickup location of the service requestor device 103 may be manually inputted into the service requestor device 103 by the user of the device 103, such as b