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 29 December 2025. Claims 1-20 are examined and pending. Claims 1, 11, 16, and 18 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the rejection as previously presented has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejection(s) 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:
Step 2A: The claims are not directed to an abstract idea
Independent claims Here, the Office Action asserts that the claims recite features that "under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind." Office action, page 4. Further, the Office Action asserts that "The mere nominal recitation of 'a system' 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." Id.,
Applicant respectfully points out that the term "abstract" refers to a level of specificity of the claims, and not to a particular category of subject matter that the claims involve. The question of whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea is a question of whether the claims are so broadly written as to constitute an attempt to monopolize more than the inventor has actually invented. In other words, the question as to whether the claims are directed to abstract subject matter should be focused on whether claims are drafted to a specific invention or to a broad category into which the invention falls. As pointed out previously, the Federal Circuit has held that "describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule." Enfish, page 14 (also quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354, noting that "we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle [of laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas] lest it swallow all of patent law").
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not directed to covering "performance of the limitation in the mind" as the Office Action has asserted at page 4, the claims are directed to producing a path between checkpoints of a road system through aggregation of an identified plurality of probe trips that pass through specified other checkpoints. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 Guidelines. For instance, the claims do not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations. Further, the claims do not recite any method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Finally, the claims do not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind.
Applicant respectfully submits that the features listed above do not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations or any method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Nor do these features recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind. By way of example, "identifying, by the system, a plurality of probe trips from the first checkpoint to the second checkpoint that pass through the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint, while omitting other probe trips that pass through the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint but are not from the first checkpoint to the second checkpoint" and "aggregating, by the system, the plurality of probe trips to produce a path between the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint" are interactions that cannot be performed in the human mind. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that the claims do not recite a judicial exception.
Applicant further notes that the Guidelines instruct that "the analysis should not proceed beyond Prong 1 absent a "rare circumstance." Applicant respectfully requests the Office to identify the reasoning as to why the analysis of these claims should proceed beyond Prong 1.
The examiner has considered the arguments for step 2A prong 1 and respectfully disagree. identifying a first checkpoint corresponding to a first decision trigger area of a road system; identifying a second checkpoint corresponding to a second decision trigger area of the road system; identifying a third checkpoint corresponding to a third decision trigger area of the road system; identifying a fourth checkpoint corresponding to a fourth decision trigger area; identifying a plurality of probe trips from the first checkpoint to the second checkpoint that pass through the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint, while omitting other probe trips that pass through the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint but are not from the first checkpoint to the second checkpoint. 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 “a system”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as different decision trigger areas and trips that has been travelled between different checkpoints could identify a first checkpoint corresponding to a first decision trigger area of a road system; identify a second checkpoint corresponding to a second decision trigger area of the road system; identify a third checkpoint corresponding to a third decision trigger area of the road system; identify a fourth checkpoint corresponding to a fourth decision trigger area; identify a plurality of probe trips between the first checkpoint to the second checkpoint that pass through the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint. The mere nominal recitation of “a system” 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).
Secondly, applicant argues Step 2A, Prong 2 as follows:
Even if, arguendo, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application such that the claims are
patent eligible.
Applicant respectfully submits that, even if, arguendo, the claims are
directed to a judicial exception, the claims integrate that judicial exception into a practical application. For example, Applicant respectfully submits that the features of claim 1 impose meaningful limits on any alleged judicial exception.
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, at least as amended, are directed to a technical improvement. One reason is that the claims are directed to a technical improvement of generating an improved path based on relevant probe trips (including omitting irrelevant probe trips) to be utilized for production of direction paths for directions between locations.
Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application because the limitations of claim 1 individually "impose... a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." By way of example Claim 1, as amended, is not drafted in such a way as to monopolize any potential judicial exception as there are many ways in which generating paths to be utilized for producing directions paths between locations may be performed.
3. Even if, arguendo, the claims are abstract, the claims amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea and thus qualify as eligible subject matter under 35
U.S.C.§101.
Even if we assume, arguendo, that the claims involve an abstract idea at some level, with which Applicant expressly disagrees, the claims are directed to "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself and, thus, comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101. In assessing whether the claims recite "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea, the M.P.E.P requires that the claims "must be considered as a whole." M.P.E.P. §2106.05. The M.P.E.P. further states that
"Consideration of the elements in combination is particularly important, because even if an additional element does not amount to significantly more on its own, it can still amount to significantly more when considered in combination with the other elements of the claim." Id.
The Federal Circuit has recently confirmed, in Finjan, that while claims directed to a result itself are not patent-eligible, a specific way of achieving that result is patent-eligible. In Finjan, the court found the claims to be "directed to a method of providing computer security by scanning a downloadable and attaching the results of that scan to the downloadable itself in the form of a 'security profile."' The court found the claims to be directed to patent eligible subject matter because the recited features claim an "operation [that] is distinguished from traditional, 'code-matching' virus scans that are limited to recognizing the presence of previously-identified viruses, typically by comparing the code in a downloadable to a database of known suspicious code." The court then found that the operation "constitutes an improvement in computer functionality," as it "can be used to protect against previously unknown viruses as well as 'obfuscated code."' In Finjan, the court concluded that the claims are patent eligible because they are not directed to a produced result, which by itself would not be patent-eligible, but instead the claims recite a specific way of achieving that result which is patent-eligible.
Likewise, the current claims are not directed to a general concept, but instead
recite a specific way of identifying probe trips and aggregating the probe trips to produce a path that avoids erroneous and inefficient path production, which Applicant respectfully submits is patent eligible for the same reasons pointed out by the court in Finjan.
In further support, in Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. A T&T Mobility LLC, the Federal Circuit indicated that "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional" components can provide an "inventive concept" sufficient to constitute sufficiently more under Step 2B. No. 2015-1763 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016). To support its conclusion, the court considered whether the arrangement of elements is a technical improvement of prior art and whether the claims preempt all implementations of the abstract idea. Id. at pp 15-20. Applicant submits that the features of claim 1 are combined in a way that is a non-conventional and non-generic, and that includes an inventive concept. This is evidenced by the fact that the limitations are not disclosed by the prior art-as described herein, relate to an improvement of computer functionality (e.g., reducing erroneous and ineffective path production), and do not preempt other implementations of direction producing systems. Thus, just like the claims in Bascom, the claims in this application include an inventive concept. Therefore, even if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, which Appellant expressly denies, the claims are nevertheless directed to a patentable idea that is significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
The examiner has considered the arguments for step 2A prong 2 and respectfully disagree. The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of aggregating the plurality of probe trips to produce a path between the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint; and storing the path between the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint to be utilized for production of direction paths, the direction paths to be utilized to provide directions between locations, a system, one or more processors, non-transitory computer-readable media, and a memory. The aggregating and storing 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 a system, one or more processors, non-transitory computer-readable media, and a memory 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 is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, instructing, and devices (e.g. one or more processors) elements/steps were considered to be 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 does not provide any indication that these elements/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 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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 line 4, the recited limitation “located the distance from the intersection area” is indefinite. it is unclear to the examiner what the limitation is referring to or intended to recite?
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 1-20 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 1-20 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
The independent claims 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 identifying a first checkpoint corresponding to a first decision trigger area of a road system; identifying a second checkpoint corresponding to a second decision trigger area of the road system; identifying a third checkpoint corresponding to a third decision trigger area of the road system; identifying a fourth checkpoint corresponding to a fourth decision trigger area; identifying a plurality of probe trips between the first checkpoint to the second checkpoint that pass through the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint. 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 “a system”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as different decision trigger areas and trips that has been travelled between different checkpoints could identify a first checkpoint corresponding to a first decision trigger area of a road system; identify a second checkpoint corresponding to a second decision trigger area of the road system; identify a third checkpoint corresponding to a third decision trigger area of the road system; identify a fourth checkpoint corresponding to a fourth decision trigger area; identify a plurality of probe trips between the first checkpoint to the second checkpoint that pass through the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint; while omitting other probe trips that pass through the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint but are not from the first checkpoint to the second checkpoint. The mere nominal recitation of “a system” 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 aggregating the plurality of probe trips to produce a path between the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint; and storing the path between the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint to be utilized for production of direction paths, the direction paths to be utilized to provide directions between locations, a system, one or more processors, non-transitory computer-readable media, and a memory. The aggregating and storing 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 a system, one or more processors, non-transitory computer-readable media, and a memory 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 aggregating and storing 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 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-20 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 1-4 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kluge (US 20180216949 A1) in view of Duan et al (US 201600334226 A1) in view of Fowe et al (US 20230324195 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Kluge discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: identifying, by a system, a first checkpoint corresponding to a first decision trigger area of a road system (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]); identifying, by the system, a second checkpoint corresponding to a second decision trigger area of the road system (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]); identifying, by the system, a third checkpoint corresponding to a third decision trigger area of the road system (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]); identifying, by the system, a fourth checkpoint corresponding to a fourth decision trigger area (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]); identifying; by the system, a plurality of trips between the first checkpoint to the second checkpoint that pass through the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5], Kluge discloses a route that travels from for example a first point DP7 to second travel point DP10 hat passes through the third point DP7 and fourth point DP8); aggregating, to produce a path between the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5], Kluge discloses a route that travels from for example a first point DP7 to second travel point DP10 hat passes through the third point DP7 and fourth point DP8); and storing, by the system, the path between the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint to be utilized for production of direction paths, the direction paths to be utilized to provide directions between locations (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]).
However, Kluge do not specifically disclose identifying; by the system, a plurality of probe trips between the first checkpoint to the second checkpoint that pass through the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint; aggregating, by the system, the plurality of probe trips to produce a path between the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint.
Fowe et al teaches identifying; by the system, a plurality of probe trips from the first checkpoint to the second checkpoint that pass through the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint (see at least [0022], [0024-0028], [0036-0037], [0039-0040], [0048-0059], and [0076-0079]); aggregating, by the system, the plurality of probe trips to produce a path between the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint (see at least [0022], [0024-0028], [0036-0037], [0039-0040], [0048-0059], and [0076-0079]).
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 Kluge, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fowe of identifying; by the system, a plurality of probe trips between the first checkpoint to the second checkpoint that pass through the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint; aggregating, by the system, the plurality of probe trips to produce a path between the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint. This would be done for highly accurate spatial-temporal localization leveraging insight from real-time lane level traffic processing (see Fowe para 0005).
Kluge as modified by Fowe do not specifically teach identifying; by the system, a plurality of trips between the first checkpoint to the second checkpoint that pass through the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint while omitting other probe trips that pass through the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint but are not from the first checkpoint to the second checkpoint.
Duan teaches identifying; by the system, a plurality of trips between the first checkpoint to the second checkpoint that pass through the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint while omitting other probe trips that pass through the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint but are not from the first checkpoint to the second checkpoint (see at least [0025-0035], [0038-0045], [0047-0050], [0052-0057], and [0061-0067]).
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 Kluge as modified by Fowe, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Duan of identifying; by the system, a plurality of probe trips between the first checkpoint to the second checkpoint that pass through the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint; aggregating, by the system, the plurality of probe trips to produce a path between the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint. This would be done to increase the convenience of road users having access to correct/updated map (see Duan para 0004).
With respect to claim 2, Kluge discloses wherein a route along the road system is defined from the third checkpoint to the fourth checkpoint (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]).
Kluge do not specifically disclose wherein aggregating the plurality of probe trips comprises: dividing, by the system, the route into multiple route segments; sampling, by the system, each of the multiple route segments to acquire points from each of the plurality of probe trips within each of the multiple route segments; determining, by the system. geometric medians for each of the multiple route segments based at least in part on the points from each of plurality of probe trips; and producing, by the system. the path based at least in part on the geometric medians for each of the multiple route segments.
Fowe teaches wherein aggregating the plurality of probe trips comprises: dividing, by the system, the route into multiple route segments (see at least [0022], [0024-0028], [0036-0037], [0039-0040], [0048-0059], and [0076-0079]); sampling, by the system, each of the multiple route segments to acquire points from each of the plurality of probe trips within each of the multiple route segments (see at least [0022], [0024-0028], [0036-0037], [0039-0040], [0048-0059], and [0076-0079]); determining, by the system, geometric medians for each of the multiple route segments based at least in part on the points from each of plurality of probe trips (see at least [0022], [0024-0028], [0036-0037], [0039-0040], [0048-0059], and [0076-0079]); and producing, by the system. the path based at least in part on the geometric medians for each of the multiple route segments (see at least [0022], [0024-0028], [0036-0037], [0039-0040], [0048-0059], and [0076-0079]).
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 Kluge, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fowe of identifying; by the system, a plurality of probe trips between the first checkpoint to the second checkpoint that pass through the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint; aggregating, by the system, the plurality of probe trips to produce a path between the third checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint. This would be done for highly accurate spatial-temporal localization leveraging insight from real-time lane level traffic processing (see Fowe para 0005).
With respect to claim 3, Kluge do not specifically disclose map matching the plurality of probe trips to a map representation, wherein identifying the plurality of probe trips comprises identifying the plurality of probe trips that have been map matched to the map representation.
Fowe teaches matching the plurality of probe trips to a map representation (see at least [0007-0008], [0020-0022], [0028-0030], [0036-0037], [0048-0052], and [0055-0059], and [0076-0077]), wherein identifying the plurality of probe trips comprises identifying the plurality of probe trips that have been map matched to the map representation (see at least [0007-0008], [0020-0022], [0028-0030], [0036-0037], [0048-0052], and [0055-0059], and [0076-0077]).
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 Kluge, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fowe of map matching the plurality of probe trips to a map representation, wherein identifying the plurality of probe trips comprises identifying the plurality of probe trips that have been map matched to the map representation. This would be done for highly accurate spatial-temporal localization leveraging insight from real-time lane level traffic processing (see Fowe para 0005).
With respect to claim 4, Kluge do not specifically disclose wherein the map representation is a first map representation, and wherein the direction paths produced arc to be displayed on a second map representation, the second map representation being a higher fidelity representation than the first map representation.
Fowe teaches wherein the map representation is a first map representation, and wherein the direction paths produced arc to be displayed on a second map representation (see at least [0007-0008], [0020-0022], [0028-0030], [0036-0037], [0048-0052], and [0055-0059], and [0076-0077]), the second map representation being a higher fidelity representation than the first map representation (see at least [0007-0008], [0020-0022], [0028-0030], [0036-0037], [0048-0052], and [0055-0059], and [0076-0077]).
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 Kluge, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fowe wherein the map representation is a first map representation, and wherein the direction paths produced arc to be displayed on a second map representation, the second map representation being a higher fidelity representation than the first map representation. This would be done for highly accurate spatial-temporal localization leveraging insight from real-time lane level traffic processing (see Fowe para 0005).
With respect to claim 7, Kluge discloses receiving, by the system, a request for a direction route from a first location to a second location (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]); determining, by the system, that the first checkpoint, the second checkpoint, the third checkpoint, and the fourth checkpoint are along the direction route (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]; and utilizing, by the system, the path to produce a direction path for the direction route, wherein the direction path is to be utilized to provide directions from the first location to the second location (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]).
With respect to claim 8, Kluge discloses wherein the request is received from a device, and wherein the method further comprises providing at least a portion of the direction path to the device for display by the device based on the request (see at least [0037-0038], [0042-0043], and [0059]).
With respect to claim 9, Kluge discloses wherein the path is a first path, and wherein utilizing the first path to produce the direction path comprises merging the first path with a second path located adjacent to the first path to produce the direction path (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]).
With respect to claim 10, Kluge teaches wherein merging the first path with the second path comprises generating a smooth connection between a first point on the first path located a distance from an intersection area between the first path and the second path and a second point on the second path located the distance from the intersection area (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]).
With respect to claims 11, 12, and 13, they are directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 1, 2, and 3. As such, claims 11, 12, and 13, are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 1, 2, and 3 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 14, Kluge discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors; further cause the one or more processors to perform: identifying a fifth checkpoint corresponding to a fifth decision trigger area of the road system (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]), the fifth decision trigger area being adjacent to the fourth checkpoint (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]); and storing the second path from the second checkpoint to the fourth checkpoint to be utilized for production of direction routes (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]).
However, Kluge do not specifically disclose identifying a second plurality of probe trips from the third checkpoint to the fifth checkpoint that pass through the second checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint; aggregating the second plurality of probe trips to produce a second path from the second checkpoint to the fourth checkpoint.
Fowe teaches identifying a second plurality of probe trips from the third checkpoint to the fifth checkpoint that pass through the second checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint (see at least [0007-0008], [0020-0022], [0028-0030], [0036-0037], [0048-0052], and [0055-0059], and [0076-0077]); aggregating the second plurality of probe trips to produce a second path from the second checkpoint to the fourth checkpoint (see at least [0007-0008], [0020-0022], [0028-0030], [0036-0037], [0048-0052], and [0055-0059], and [0076-0077]).
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 Kluge, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fowe identifying a second plurality of probe trips from the third checkpoint to the fifth checkpoint that pass through the second checkpoint and the fourth checkpoint; aggregating the second plurality of probe trips to produce a second path from the second checkpoint to the fourth checkpoint. This would be done for highly accurate spatial-temporal localization. leveraging insight from real-time lane level traffic processing (see Fowe para 0005).
With respect to claim 15, Kluge discloses wherein the third decision trigger area and the fourth decision trigger area are a same trigger area (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]).
With respect to claim 16, Kluge discloses wherein the third checkpoint is located at a first predefined distance from an entrance of the of the third decision trigger area (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]), and wherein the fourth checkpoint is located at a second predefined distance from an exit of the third decision trigger area (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]).
With respect to claim 17, Kluge discloses wherein: identifying the first checkpoint comprises; identifying the first decision trigger area of the road system (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]); and determining that the first checkpoint is located at a first predefined distance from the first decision trigger area (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]); identifying the second checkpoint comprises identifying the second decision trigger area of the road system (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]); and determining that the second checkpoint is located at a second predefined distance from the second decision trigger area (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]); identifying the third checkpoint comprises; identifying the third decision trigger area of the road system(see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]); and determining that the third checkpoint is located at a third predefined distance from the third decision trigger area (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]); and identifying the fourth checkpoint comprises identifying the fourth decision trigger area of the road system (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]); and determining that the fourth checkpoint is located at a fourth predefined distance from the fourth decision trigger area (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]).
With respect to claims 18 and 19, they are directed to computerized system claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 1 and 7. As such, claims 18 and 19 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 1 and 7 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 20, Kluge discloses wherein: the first decision trigger area comprises a first roadway intersection, a first roadway exit, a first roadway lane merge. a first roadway lane split, or a first roadway obstruction of the road system (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]); the second decision trigger area comprises a second roadway intersection, a second roadway exit. a second roadway lane merge, a second roadway lane split, or a second roadway obstruction of the road system (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]); the third decision trigger area comprises a third roadway intersection, a third roadway exit, a third roadway lane merge. a third roadway lane split, or a third roadway obstruction of the road system (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]); and the fourth decision trigger area comprises a fourth roadway intersection. a fourth roadway exit, a fourth roadway lane merge, a fourth roadway lane split, or a fourth roadway obstruction of the road system (see at least [0011], [0015-0017], [0019], [0024-0025], [0057-0064], and [Fig. 5]).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kluge (US 20180216949 A1) in view of Fowe et al (US 20230324195 A1) in view of Duan et al (US 201600334226 A1) Fischer et al (US 20170082453 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Kluge as modified by Fowe and Duan do not specifically teach determining, by the system, a first tortuosity of a segment of the road system corresponding to the path: determining, by the system, a second tortuosity of the path; and comparing, by the system, the first tortuosity and the second tortuosity, wherein the path is stored based on the second tortuosity being within a defined threshold of the first tortuosity.
Fischer teaches determining, by the system. a first tortuosity of a segment of the road system corresponding to the path (see at least [0029], [0102-0103], [0064], [0072], [0093-0108], and [0177-0185]), determining, by the system, a second tortuosity of the path (see at least [0029], [0102-0103], [0064], [0072], [0093-0108], and [0177-0185]); and comparing, by the system, the first tortuosity and the second tortuosity, wherein the path is stored based on the second tortuosity being within a defined threshold of the first tortuosity (see at least [0029], [0102-0103], [0064], [0072], [0093-0108], and [0177-0185]).
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 Kluge as modified by Fowe and Duan, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fowe of determining, by the system; a first tortuosity of a segment of the road system corresponding to the path: determining, by the system, a second tortuosity of the path; and comparing, by the system, the first tortuosity and the second tortuosity, wherein the path is stored based on the second tortuosity being within a defined threshold of the first tortuosity. This would be done for improvement in the polyline based techniques for reconstructing routes, in particular which may be applied to the reconstruction of a range of different types of track (see Fischer para 0031).
With respect to claim 6, Kluge as modified by Fowe and Duan do not specifically teach determining, by the system. a tortuosity of the path: and determining, by the system. that the tortuosity is within a tortuosity threshold. wherein the path is stored based at least in part on the tortuosity being within the tortuosity threshold.
Fischer teaches determining, by the system, a tortuosity of the path: and determining, by the system. that the tortuosity is within a tortuosity threshold (see at least [0029], [0102-0103], [0064], [0072], [0093-0108], and [0177-0185]), wherein the path is stored based at least in part on the tortuosity being within the tortuosity threshold (see at least [0029], [0102-0103], [0064], [0072], [0093-0108], and [0177-0185]).
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 Kluge as modified by Fowe and Duan, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fowe determining, by the system; a tortuosity of the path: and determining, by the system; that the tortuosity is within a tortuosity threshold; wherein the path is stored based at least in part on the tortuosity being within the tortuosity threshold. This would be done for improvement in the polyline based techniques for reconstructing routes, in particular which may be applied to the reconstruction of a range of different types of track (see Fischer para 0031).
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