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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/691,451 filed on 3/12/2024.
Claims 1-13 have been cancelled.
Claims 14-33 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on
3/2/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-20, 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
With regard to Claims 14, 26, it’s unclear which limitations after the phrase “and then, either” are conjunctive, as opposed to disjunctive. The Examiner is interpreted these claims to mean that anything after the term “or” is disjunctive and not required to be rejected if any limitation prior to the term “or” has already been rejected. The Examiner recommends keeping all related conjunctive language within a single clause or limitation of the claim, and only putting completely disjunctive language in separate clauses or limitations.
Claims 14, 26 further teach “generating a non-modified first resource-efficient driving track.” The Examiner could not ascertain what this means. It’s unclear how a driving track is different from a “route,” which is also taught by these claims, in a separate clause. The Examiner is interpreting a “driving track” to be essentially synonymous with a “route.”
Claims 14, 26 teach “modifying the non-modified first resource-efficient driving track for the vehicle in operation in order to obtain a modified first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein said track is associated with the first portion of the route, and then, determining at least one second portion of the route associated with the first portion of the route, wherein the second portion of the route includes the second waypoint for the vehicle in operation, followed by generating a non-modified second resource-efficient driving track for the vehicle in operation, that is associated with the first portion of the route.” The Examiner believes this limitation is unclear. Specifically, the Examiner could not ascertain the steps that modify the first resource-efficient track to a second resource-efficient track. It’s also unclear what differentiates the “first portion of the route” with the “second portion of the route.” Any portion of any route would necessarily need to have a start point and an end point for that specific portion of the route, so as to differentiate that portion from any other portion of the route. These claims only recite a “first waypoint” and a “second waypoint.” The Examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean that an initial, unmodified route is generated between the first and second waypoints of the route, and then the route can be modified to optimize efficiency for a particular resource, such as time, fuel economy, toll prices, etc.
Claims 15, 17 teach “determining a portion of the route that is associated with the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation.” Given that the Examiner could not ascertain the difference between the terms “track” and “route,” this limitation is being interpreted to mean that the system associates a resource efficiency with the non-modified route or track.
Claims 16, 18, 20, 21, 23-25, 28, 30, 32, 33 teach either one or both of a “motor vehicle,” “first motor vehicle,” or “the vehicle in operation.” It’s unclear how these terms are distinct from each other. The Examiner is interpreting these terms to be synonymous.
Claims 16, 18, 20, 23, 28, 30, 32 teach “wherein the vehicle in operation passes the portion of the route after the first motor vehicle.” Given that the Examiner could not distinguish between the “vehicle in operation” and the “first motor vehicle,” the Examiner could not ascertain what this limitation means. This limitation is being interpreted to mean that the vehicle in operation collects data as it passes a portion of its route.
Claims 16, 18, 20, 21, 23-25, 28, 30, 32, 33 teach “wherein said track is generated based on how the first motor vehicle passed the portion of the route.” The Examiner could not ascertain what this means, and is interpreting this limitation to mean that the route may be updated at any given location along the route based on information collected by the vehicle at that location.
Claims 16, 21 teach “generating the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is generated based on the track generated for the first motor vehicle.” Given that the Examiner cannot discern between the “vehicle in operation” and the “first motor vehicle,” this limitation is being interpreted to simply mean generating the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation.
Claims 16, 21 teach “Wherein the track for the first motor vehicle is generated by performing the following steps: generating a speed profile of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route; and evaluating resource efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route.” The Examiner could not ascertain how a route can be generated by creating a speed profile for, and evaluating resource efficiency on, a portion of a route. The Examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean that a route is updated, wherein the update is made in light of multiple factors, including speed and resource efficiency.
Claims 17, 29 teach “generating the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, ” “generating the resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle,” “generating a second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, based on its speed profile and evaluation of its resource efficiency when the vehicle in operation is moving in accordance with the resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle,” and “comparing the second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation with the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation.” The Examiner could not ascertain what these limitations jointly mean. In particular, it’s unclear whether the system is generating tracks for both the vehicle in operation and the second vehicle, how a track generated by the vehicle in operation could be implemented to the second vehicle, and how many tracks are being generated for the vehicle in operation. The Examiner is interpreting this claim to mean that when the system determines that the vehicle in operation is in the vicinity of an external vehicle, multiple tracks or routes for the vehicle in operation are generated and compared, wherein one or more of the generated routes may account for the nearby vehicle, and one of the generated routes is selected.
Claims 17, 29 teach “a second motor vehicle that is located in front of the vehicle in operation in its direction of movement” when first introducing the second motor vehicle. Claims 21, 33 teach “wherein the second motor vehicle is also a vehicle in operation and passes the portion of the route after the first motor vehicle.” The Examiner could not ascertain how the second motor vehicle could be in front of the host vehicle, traveling in the same direction as the host vehicle, and yet pass a portion of the route after the host vehicle does. The Examiner is interpreting these limitations to mean that the second motor vehicle travels along the same portion of the route.
Claims 19, 31 teach “wherein the current location of the vehicle in operation does not correspond to its estimated location on the portion of the route.” The Examiner could not ascertain how a location of a vehicle could not correspond with its location along a route. This limitation is being interpreted to mean that the current location of the vehicle is identified or determined.
Claims 19, 31 further teach “determining an adjustment portion of the route, wherein . . . its end coordinates match the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, are located in the vehicle in operation's direction of movement.” The Examiner could not ascertain what this means. This limitation is being interpreted to mean that the original route contains a point where the route can be adjusted, wherein the beginning of an adjustment branch of the route is located along a direction extending generally from the route’s original start point, and the end of the adjustment branch of the route is located along the original route.
Claims 19, 31 further teach “wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation contains the second preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation generated in such a way that when the vehicle in operation is moving at any of the speeds from the second preferred speed range, its speed at the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, matches any of the speeds from the first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation.” The Examiner could not ascertain what this means. The Examiner is interpreting these claims to mean that the adjustment track enables the vehicle to travel at a different speed than the original track.
Claim 22 teaches “generating the . . . track for the vehicle in operation moving along a . . . route . . . which is free from other vehicles” and “detecting a second motor vehicle located on the same portion of the route and generating a resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle . . . which is free from other vehicles.” The Examiner could not ascertain how the vehicle in operation could detect a second vehicle on the same portion of a route if that portion of the route is free of other vehicles, both for the vehicle in operation and the second vehicle. These limitations are being interpreted to mean that the subject route is relatively free of slower traffic, and that the same features of the route generated for the vehicle in operation are implemented for the route of the second vehicle.
Claim 22 further teaches “generating a resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle, the track comprising at least a speed profile of the second motor vehicle and its trajectory on the portion of the route.” The Examiner could not ascertain how the system is capable of generating a route for the host vehicle, and then also generating a route for a second vehicle. This limitation does not clearly convey how the route generated for an external vehicle is transmitted or otherwise used, either for the purposes of the host vehicle, or the second vehicle. This limitation is being interpreted to mean that a route is generated for the host vehicle, based at least in part on the trajectory or speed of surrounding vehicles.
Claim 25 further teaches “wherein resource efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of the first motor vehicle stopping at said mandatory stop point for a given period of time.” The Examiner could not ascertain how a resource efficiency could be evaluated on the basis of a vehicle stopping for a given period of time. Particularly, it’s unclear whether a positive evaluation correlates to a shorter stationary period, a longer stationary period, or something else. This limitation is being interpreted to mean that the vehicle measures how long the vehicle is stationary.
These claims should be amended to more clearly convey the meanings of these limitations, consistent with the Specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 15, 26, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Google (Full title and bibliographical is as follows: screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "HOW TO AVOID TOLL ROADS USING GOOGLE MAPS," 2 pages, uploaded on June 28, 2016 by user "Keep On Wrenching" [retrieved on 2025-09-30], retrieved from the internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH72WF7iTRk>, hereinafter referred to as Google).
In regard to Claim 14, Google teaches a method for generating a modified resource-efficient driving route for a vehicle in operation, that is performed by a computer's CPU, the method comprising at least the following steps:
Determining a location of the vehicle in operation on a first portion of a route, wherein the first portion of the route includes a first waypoint for the vehicle in operation (see 0:45 teaching a mapping system that allows the user to enter the user’s location as the starting point of the route);
Generating a non-modified first resource-efficient driving track for the vehicle in operation, that is associated with the first portion of the route (see 0:46 teaching that the system generates a route between the starting point and the end point that is more time-efficient than an alternative route);
Then, either modifying the non-modified first resource-efficient driving track for the vehicle in operation in order to obtain a modified first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein said track is associated with the first portion of the route, and then, determining at least one second portion of the route associated with the first portion of the route, wherein the second portion of the route includes a second waypoint for the vehicle in operation, followed by generating a non-modified second resource-efficient driving track for the vehicle in operation, that is associated with the first portion of the route (see 0:57-1:10 teaching that after the user selects a toll avoidance option, a modified route is generated, wherein the modified route is based on the original route, but now is more efficient in terms of toll costs, and wherein the modified route is associated with both the original starting waypoint and the original final waypoint of the route);
Or modifying the non-modified first resource-efficient driving track for the vehicle in operation in order to obtain a modified first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein said track is associated with the first portion of the route, and then, determining at least one second portion of the route associated with the first portion of the route, wherein the second portion of the route includes the second waypoint for the vehicle in operation, followed by:
Generating a non-modified second resource-efficient driving track for the vehicle in operation, that is associated with the first portion of the route, followed by modifying the non-modified second resource-efficient driving track for the vehicle in operation in order to obtain a modified second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein said track is associated with the second portion of the route,
Or generating a non-modified second resource-efficient driving route for the vehicle in operation, and then, modifying the non-modified second resource-efficient driving track for the vehicle in operation in order to obtain a modified second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, followed by determining at least one second portion of the route associated with the modified second resource-efficient driving route for the vehicle in operation and the first portion of the route.
All claim language starting with the phrase “or modifying the non-modified first resource-efficient driving track” has not been examined as it is disjunctive from the rest of Claim 1, which has been examined. Please see the 35 USC § 112 rejection of Claim 14 above for further analysis.
In regard to Claim 15, Google further teaches that the non-modified first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation and/or the non-modified second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is a non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the modified first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation and/or the modified second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is a modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation and has been obtained through the method for generating a modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, performed by the CPU of the computer device, the method comprising at least the following steps:
Generating a non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation; determining a portion of the route that is associated with the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation (see 0:46 teaching that the system generates an unmodified route);
Determining a first estimated resource efficiency of the vehicle in operation that is associated with the portion of the route associated with the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation (see 0:46 teaching that the system determines that the generated route is the fastest route, thereby establishing that the generated route is most efficient with regard to time spent traveling);
Adjusting the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation in order to obtain a modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, the track including at least a second estimated resource efficiency of the vehicle in operation that is associated with the portion of the route associated with the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation (see 0:57-1:10 teaching that after the user selects a toll avoidance option, a modified route is generated, wherein the modified route is based on the original route, but now is more efficient in terms of toll costs, and wherein the modified route is associated with both the original starting waypoint and the original final waypoint of the route),
Wherein the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is adjusted, so that the second estimated resource efficiency of the vehicle in operation is different from the first one (see 0:46-1:10 teaching that the first efficiency correlates to time spent traveling, and the second efficiency relates to the route’s cost with regard to tolls).
Claim 26 is substantially similar to Claim 14 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 14 above for analysis.
Claim 27 is substantially similar to Claim 15 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 15 above for analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 16, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Google (Full title and bibliographical is as follows: screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "HOW TO AVOID TOLL ROADS USING GOOGLE MAPS," 2 pages, uploaded on June 28, 2016 by user "Keep On Wrenching" [retrieved on 2025-09-30], retrieved from the internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH72WF7iTRk>, hereinafter referred to as Google) in view of Kumar (U.S. Patent 10,994,727 B1), in further view of Moore (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0063937 A1).
In regard to Claim 16, Google further teaches that the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, generated by means of the CPU of the computer device implementing the method for generating a resource-efficient track for a motor vehicle, the method comprising the following steps:
Generating the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is generated based on the track generated for the first motor vehicle (see 0:46 teaching that the system generates a route between the starting point and the end point that is more time-efficient than an alternative route).
Google fails to teach collecting primary data that involves obtaining data associated with a first motor vehicle, data associated with the portion of the route to be passed by the first motor vehicle, and data associated with the vehicle in operation, wherein the vehicle in operation passes the portion of the route after the first motor vehicle; and
Generating a track of the first motor vehicle, wherein said track is generated based on how the first motor vehicle passed the portion of the route.
However, Kumar teaches collecting primary data that involves obtaining data associated with a first motor vehicle, data associated with the portion of the route to be passed by the first motor vehicle, and data associated with the vehicle in operation, wherein the vehicle in operation passes the portion of the route after the first motor vehicle (see Column 12 line 67-Column 13 line 7 teaching a vehicle control and response system wherein the system collects data related to a first vehicle’s rapid acceleration away from a stop sign); and
Generating a track of the first motor vehicle, wherein said track is generated based on how the first motor vehicle passed the portion of the route (see Figures 8A-B, Column 36 lines 45-58 teaching that as the vehicle is traveling along the route, the system may receive data indicating that an accident is present on the route, and may advertise an alternate route in order to avoid the accident).
Google and Kumar are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Google’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein as the vehicle is traveling, it collects data along the route, and may generate an alternate route in response to that data as taught by Kumar. Doing so could improve a navigation system by enabling it to react to new information pertaining to a route as the vehicle travels along the route. This could potentially save the user time as they travel.
Google further fails to teach wherein the track for the first motor vehicle is generated by performing the following steps: generating a speed profile of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route; and evaluating resource efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route.
However, Moore teaches wherein the track for the first motor vehicle is generated by performing the following steps: generating a speed profile of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route; and evaluating resource efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route (see Paragraph 9 lines 13-24 teaching a vehicle energy management system wherein a given path segment is updated by the system, based on the determined average velocity of the vehicle).
Google and Moore are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems used to control vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Google’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a vehicle’s route is updated based on the velocity of the vehicle as taught by Moore. Doing so could optimize the vehicle’s route based on the vehicle’s speed, potentially saving the vehicle’s occupants travel time.
Claim 28 is substantially similar to Claim 16 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 16 above for analysis.
Claims 17, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Google (Full title and bibliographical is as follows: screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "HOW TO AVOID TOLL ROADS USING GOOGLE MAPS," 2 pages, uploaded on June 28, 2016 by user "Keep On Wrenching" [retrieved on 2025-09-30], retrieved from the internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH72WF7iTRk>, hereinafter referred to as Google) in view of Tzamaloukas (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0073361 A1), in further view of Moore (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0063937 A1).
In regard to Claim 17, Google fails to teach that the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a highway that has been generated by the CPU of the computer device performing the steps according to the method for generating a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a highway, the method comprising at least the following steps:
Generating a first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation; determining a second motor vehicle that is located in front of the vehicle in operation in its direction of movement along the highway and generating a resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle;
Generating a second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation;
Comparing the second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation with the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation in order to generate a control signal to assign a resource-efficient track to the vehicle in operation;
And assigning a resource-efficient track to the vehicle in operation, wherein the resource-efficient track to be assigned is one of the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation and the second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation.
However, Tzamaloukas teaches that the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a highway that has been generated by the CPU of the computer device performing the steps according to the method for generating a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a highway, the method comprising at least the following steps (see Figures 9, 10, Paragraph 77 lines 6-9, Paragraph 102 lines 7-24 teaching that vehicle 11 starts at the origin, which is the leftmost point of freeway F1, and proceeds along a route to the destination, which is the rightmost point of freeway F1, and that the path is modeled by a computer simulation):
Generating the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation; determining a second motor vehicle that is located in front of the vehicle in operation in its direction of movement along the highway and generating the resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle (see Figure 10 teaching that multiple routes are calculated for vehicles 9, 11, 13);
Generating a second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation (see Figure 10 teaching that multiple routes are calculated for vehicles 9, 11, 13);
Comparing the second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation with the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation in order to generate a control signal to assign a resource-efficient track to the vehicle in operation (see Figure 10, Paragraph 102 lines 7-24 teaching that vehicle 11 continues on F3, while continuing to receive traffic congestion updates from the other vehicles within range, until it reaches the intersection of F2 and F3, at which point traffic congestion information from nearby vehicles triggers the routing algorithm for vehicle 11 to characterize F2 a poorer route than an alternate route, which causes vehicle 11 to make a u-turn at the intersection of F2 and F3, traversing back on F3 until it reaches the intersection of F3 and F1 at around time 11, at which point vehicle 11 then continues on F1 until it reaches its destination);
And assigning a resource-efficient track to the vehicle in operation, wherein the resource-efficient track to be assigned is one of the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation and the second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation (see Figure 10, Paragraph 102 lines 7-24 teaching that the selected alternate route is one of the three possible routes generated by the system).
Google and Tzamaloukas are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Google’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein multiple route options are generated, and a superior route is selected based on a comparison of the routes as taught by Tzamaloukas. Doing so could enable a route that is superior to other routes to be selected, saving the vehicle operator time, wear and tear to the vehicle, fuel costs, and so on.
Google further fails to teach wherein the second track is generated based on its speed profile and evaluation of its resource efficiency when the vehicle in operation is moving in accordance with the resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle.
However, Moore teaches wherein the second track is generated based on its speed profile and evaluation of its resource efficiency when the vehicle in operation is moving in accordance with the resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle (see Paragraph 9 lines 13-24 teaching a vehicle energy management system wherein a given path segment is updated by the system, based on the determined average velocity of the vehicle).
Google and Moore are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems used to control vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Google’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a vehicle’s route is updated based on the velocity of the vehicle as taught by Moore. Doing so could optimize the vehicle’s route based on the vehicle’s speed, potentially saving the vehicle’s occupants travel time.
Claim 29 is substantially similar to Claim 17 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 17 above for analysis.
Claims 18, 30, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Google (Full title and bibliographical is as follows: screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "HOW TO AVOID TOLL ROADS USING GOOGLE MAPS," 2 pages, uploaded on June 28, 2016 by user "Keep On Wrenching" [retrieved on 2025-09-30], retrieved from the internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH72WF7iTRk>, hereinafter referred to as Google) in view of Tzamaloukas (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0073361 A1), in further view of Kumar (U.S. Patent 10,994,727 B1), in further view of Moore (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0063937 A1).
Claim 18 is substantially similar to Claim 16 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 16 above for analysis.
Claim 30 is substantially similar to Claim 16 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 16 above for analysis.
Claim 32 is substantially similar to Claims 16, 19 (the claim language contains major elements of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claims 16, 19 above for analysis.
Claims 19, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Google (Full title and bibliographical is as follows: screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "HOW TO AVOID TOLL ROADS USING GOOGLE MAPS," 2 pages, uploaded on June 28, 2016 by user "Keep On Wrenching" [retrieved on 2025-09-30], retrieved from the internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH72WF7iTRk>, hereinafter referred to as Google) in view of Tzamaloukas (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0073361 A1), in further view of Moore (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0063937 A1), in further view of Moshchuk (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0257304 A1).
In regard to Claim 19, Google fails to teach that the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is an adjustment resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, generated by means of the CPU of the computer device implementing the method for generating an adjustment resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, the method comprising at least the following steps:
Generating an adjustment resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the adjustment resource-efficient track is generated based on a main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation includes at least an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, contains at least a first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated;
And wherein the step of generating an adjustment resource-efficient track comprises at least the following steps: determining the current location of the vehicle in operation, wherein the current location of the vehicle in operation does not correspond to its estimated location on the portion of the route;
Determining an adjustment portion of the route, wherein its start coordinates match the current location of the vehicle in operation and its end coordinates match the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, are located in the vehicle in operation's direction of movement;
Collecting primary adjustment data, which involves obtaining data associated with the vehicle in operation and data associated with the adjustment portion of the route;
And generating an adjustment resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the adjustment resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the adjustment portion of the route, and wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation contains a second preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation generated in such a way that when the vehicle in operation is moving at any of the speeds from the second preferred speed range, its speed at the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, matches any of the speeds from the first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation.
However, Tzamaloukas teaches that the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is an adjustment resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, generated by means of the CPU of the computer device implementing the method for generating an adjustment resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, the method comprising at least the following steps:
Generating an adjustment resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the adjustment resource-efficient track is generated based on a main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation includes at least an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, contains at least a first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated (see Figures 10-13, Paragraph 58 lines 5-10, Paragraph 69 lines 1-9, Paragraph 102 lines 7-24 teaching that the different routes taken by vehicles 9, 11, and 13 take into account the speeds the vehicles can travel at along portions of the various routes generated by the system);
And wherein the step of generating an adjustment resource-efficient track comprises at least the following steps: determining the current location of the vehicle in operation, wherein the current location of the vehicle in operation does not correspond to its estimated location on the portion of the route (see Paragraph 78 lines 2-7 teaching that the vehicle mobility module provides vehicle location information);
Determining an adjustment portion of the route, wherein its start coordinates match the current location of the vehicle in operation and its end coordinates match the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, are located in the vehicle in operation's direction of movement (see Figure 10 teaching that the point where the various routes deviate from each other is located along the direction of the original route from the origin, and that the various routes all converge along the freeway F1 prior to reaching the destination);
Collecting primary adjustment data, which involves obtaining data associated with the vehicle in operation and data associated with the adjustment portion of the route (see Figure 10, Paragraph 102 lines 7-24 teaching that vehicle 11 continues on F3, while continuing to receive traffic congestion updates from the other vehicles within range, until it reaches the intersection of F2 and F3, at which point traffic congestion information from nearby vehicles triggers the routing algorithm for vehicle 11 to characterize F2 a poorer route than an alternate route, which causes vehicle 11 to make a u-turn at the intersection of F2 and F3, traversing back on F3 until it reaches the intersection of F3 and F1 at around time 11, at which point vehicle 11 then continues on F1 until it reaches its destination);
And generating an adjustment resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the adjustment resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the adjustment portion of the route, and wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation contains a second preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation generated in such a way that when the vehicle in operation is moving at any of the speeds from the second preferred speed range, its speed at the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, matches any of the speeds from the first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation (see Figures 10-13, Paragraph 58 lines 5-10, Paragraph 69 lines 1-9, Paragraph 102 lines 7-24 teaching that the different routes taken by vehicles 9, 11, and 13 take into account the speeds the vehicles can travel at along portions of the various routes generated by the system).
Google and Tzamaloukas are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Google’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein various routes that deviate and converge within the original route are compared in terms of the speeds the vehicle can achieve while traversing a given route, and selecting a route based on that criteria as taught by Tzamaloukas. Doing so could enable a vehicle operator to make route deviations without having to return to or past the original start point, or travel further than the original destination, and select an optimal route or route deviation based on the speeds the vehicle can travel at while traversing the selected route.
Google further fails to teach wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation contains estimated locations of the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route.
However, Moshchuk teaches wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation contains estimated locations of the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route (see Paragraph 40 lines 5-8 teaching a vehicle motion control system wherein a vehicle’s control reference may include a desired speed profile, and locations along a projected vehicle travel route).
Google and Moshchuk are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle routing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Google’s invention to incorporate a speed profile feature wherein a vehicle’s desired speed along a route is calculated as taught by Moshchuk. Doing so could increase the accuracy of navigation planning by incorporating speeds at certain locations along a desired route.
Claim 31 is substantially similar to Claim 19 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 19 above for analysis.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Google (Full title and bibliographical is as follows: screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "HOW TO AVOID TOLL ROADS USING GOOGLE MAPS," 2 pages, uploaded on June 28, 2016 by user "Keep On Wrenching" [retrieved on 2025-09-30], retrieved from the internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH72WF7iTRk>, hereinafter referred to as Google) in view of Tzamaloukas (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0073361 A1), in further view of Kumar (U.S. Patent 10,994,727 B1), in further view of Moore (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0063937 A1), in further view of Moshchuk (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0257304 A1).
Claim 20 is substantially similar to Claims 16, 19 (the claim language contains major elements of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claims 16, 19 above for analysis.
Claims 21, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Google (Full title and bibliographical is as follows: screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "HOW TO AVOID TOLL ROADS USING GOOGLE MAPS," 2 pages, uploaded on June 28, 2016 by user "Keep On Wrenching" [retrieved on 2025-09-30], retrieved from the internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH72WF7iTRk>, hereinafter referred to as Google) in view of Kumar (U.S. Patent 10,994,727 B1), in further view of Noguchi (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0312144 A1).
In regard to Claim 21, Google fails to teach that the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a portion of the route containing a mandatory deceleration point that has been generated by the CPU of the computer device performing the steps according to the method for generating a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a portion of the route containing a mandatory deceleration point, the method comprising at least the following steps:
Collecting primary data, which involves obtaining data associated with a first motor vehicle, data associated with the portion of the route to be passed by the first motor vehicle, and data associated with a second motor vehicle, wherein the second motor vehicle is also a vehicle in operation and passes the portion of the route after the first motor vehicle, and wherein the data associated with the portion of the route include at least data associated with a mandatory deceleration point;
Using the data associated with a mandatory deceleration point;
And wherein the data associated with a mandatory deceleration point include one of the following: data associated with a mandatory deceleration point on a portion of the route that is adjoined or intersected by another portion of the route, data associated with a mandatory deceleration point on a portion of the route containing an infrastructure element, which controls the movement of motor vehicles on the portion of the route, data associated with a mandatory deceleration point on a portion of the route containing a traffic sign providing a speed limit for motor vehicles on the portion of the route, data associated with a mandatory deceleration point on a portion of the route containing an obstacle, and/or a combination thereof.
However, Kumar teaches that the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a portion of the route containing a mandatory deceleration point that has been generated by the CPU of the computer device performing the steps according to the method for generating a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a portion of the route containing a mandatory deceleration point, the method comprising at least the following steps:
Collecting primary data, which involves obtaining data associated with a first motor vehicle, data associated with the portion of the route to be passed by the first motor vehicle, and data associated with a second motor vehicle, wherein the second motor vehicle is also a vehicle in operation and passes the portion of the route after the first motor vehicle, and wherein the data associated with the portion of the route include at least data associated with a mandatory deceleration point (see Column 12 line 67-Column 13 line 7 teaching that the system collects data pertaining to the speed at which both a first and a second vehicle proceed through a stop sign along their route);
Using the data associated with a mandatory deceleration point (see Column 12 line 67-Column 13 line 7 teaching that the system can use the vehicle data to determine if the second vehicle ran the stop sign);
And wherein the data associated with a mandatory deceleration point include one of the following: data associated with a mandatory deceleration point on a portion of the route that is adjoined or intersected by another portion of the route, data associated with a mandatory deceleration point on a portion of the route containing an infrastructure element, which controls the movement of motor vehicles on the portion of the route, data associated with a mandatory deceleration point on a portion of the route containing a traffic sign providing a speed limit for motor vehicles on the portion of the route, data associated with a mandatory deceleration point on a portion of the route containing an obstacle, and/or a combination thereof (see Column 12 line 67-Column 13 line 7 teaching that the mandatory deceleration point is a stop sign, which is an infrastructure element).
Google and Kumar are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Google’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein vehicle data for multiple vehicle can be obtained at a mandatory deceleration point, and the system can use the data collected as taught by Kumar. Doing so could enable the data recipient to determine if a vehicle is driving in an unsafe manner. This could increase the recipient’s situational awareness, or enable the recipient to report the vehicle. Both of these outcomes could increase the recipient’s safety.
Google further fails to teach generating an estimated track for the second motor vehicle, wherein the estimated track for the second motor vehicle is generated based on the track generated for the first motor vehicle.
However, Noguchi teaches generating an estimated track for the second motor vehicle, wherein the estimated track for the second motor vehicle is generated based on the track generated for the first motor vehicle (see Paragraph 8 teaching vehicle guidance device wherein a third vehicle route is generated based on a second vehicle route after analyzing features of the second vehicle route).
Google and Noguchi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Google’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a secondary vehicle route can be generated or modified based on an analysis of a primary vehicle route as taught by Noguchi. Doing so could improve a vehicle navigation system by enabling it to use portions or already-existing routes when generating a new route. This could decrease the amount of data or processing power needed to generate the new route. This could decrease the energy, time, and cost of generating the new route.
The rest of Claim 21 is substantially similar to Claim 16. Please see the rejection of Claim 16 above for analysis.
Claim 33 is substantially similar to Claim 21 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 21 above for analysis.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Google (Full title and bibliographical is as follows: screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "HOW TO AVOID TOLL ROADS USING GOOGLE MAPS," 2 pages, uploaded on June 28, 2016 by user "Keep On Wrenching" [retrieved on 2025-09-30], retrieved from the internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH72WF7iTRk>, hereinafter referred to as Google) in view of Noguchi (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0312144 A1), in further view of Adireddy (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0207367 A1), in further view of Danford (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0405642 A1).
In regard to Claim 22, Google fails to teach that the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a portion of the route in an urban area that has been generated by the CPU of the computer device performing the steps according to the method for generating a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a portion of the route in an urban area, the method comprising at least the following steps:
Detecting a second motor vehicle located on the same portion of the route and generating a resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle;
Comparing the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation and the resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle in order to obtain the comparison data comprising the data of joint trajectories of the vehicle in operation and the second motor vehicle moving along the portion of the route with their respective speed profiles;
And generating the second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation based on the comparison data obtained.
However, Noguchi teaches that the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a portion of the route in an urban area that has been generated by the CPU of the computer device performing the steps according to the method for generating a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a portion of the route in an urban area, the method comprising at least the following steps:
Detecting a second motor vehicle located on the same portion of the route and generating a resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle (see Paragraph 8 teaching that the third vehicle route is generated based on a second vehicle route after analyzing whether the second vehicle route overlaps with a first vehicle route);
Comparing the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation and the resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle in order to obtain the comparison data comprising the data of joint trajectories of the vehicle in operation and the second motor vehicle moving along the portion of the route with their respective speed profiles (see Paragraph 8, Paragraph 53 lines 1-5 teaching that the system analyzes whether the second vehicle route overlaps with a first vehicle route, and that the vehicle can determine the speed of objects around the vehicle, such as other vehicles);
And generating the second resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation based on the comparison data obtained (see Paragraph 8 lines 1-5 teaching that the third vehicle route is generated based on a second vehicle route after analyzing whether the second vehicle route overlaps with a first vehicle route).
Google and Noguchi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Google’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a secondary vehicle route can be generated or modified based on an analysis of a primary vehicle route, including the speeds of vehicles along the route, as taught by Noguchi. Doing so could improve a vehicle navigation system by enabling it to use portions or already-existing routes when generating a new route. This could decrease the amount of data or processing power needed to generate the new route. This could decrease the energy, time, and cost of generating the new route.
Google further fails to teach generating a first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a portion of the route, the track comprising at least a speed profile of the vehicle in operation and its trajectory on the portion of the route, wherein the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is generated for a portion of the route, which is free from other vehicles;
The track comprising at least a speed profile of the second motor vehicle and its trajectory on the portion of the route, wherein the resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle is generated for the portion of the route, which is free from other vehicles.
However, Adireddy teaches generating a first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a portion of the route, the track comprising at least a speed profile of the vehicle in operation and its trajectory on the portion of the route, wherein the first resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is generated for a portion of the route, which is free from other vehicles (see Paragraph 18, Paragraph 43 lines 7-11 teaching a vehicle guidance system wherein if a primary vehicle 10 is traveling at a speed greater than that of those indicated for other nearby vehicles, then a recommended path 78 is generated to illustrate how a driver may avoid the slower traffic, considering the current direction of the primary vehicle);
The track comprising at least a speed profile of the second motor vehicle and its trajectory on the portion of the route, wherein the resource-efficient track for the second motor vehicle is generated for the portion of the route, which is free from other vehicles (see Paragraph 18, Paragraph 43 lines 7-11 teaching a vehicle guidance system wherein if a primary vehicle 10 is traveling at a speed greater than that of those indicated for other nearby vehicles, then a recommended path 78 is generated to illustrate how a driver may avoid the slower traffic, considering the current direction of the primary vehicle).
Google and Adireddy are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Google’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a host vehicle analyzes its own speed as well as the speed of surrounding vehicles, and generates an alternate route based on the speed comparison and the host vehicle’s trajectory as taught by Adireddy. Doing so could improve a vehicle navigation system by enabling the operator to avoid areas with heavy traffic, decreasing travel time and vehicle wear and tear.
Google further fails to teach wherein the route is in an urban area.
However, Danford teaches wherein the route is in an urban area (see Paragraph 21 lines 3-8 teaching a vehicle trajectory validation system that is capable of generating and modeling a vehicle trajectory in an urban environment).
Google and Danford are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Google’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the system can operate within an urban area as taught by Danford. Doing so could improve a navigation system by broadening its scope to include driving routes in and around large cities, where many travelers commute.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Google (Full title and bibliographical is as follows: screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "HOW TO AVOID TOLL ROADS USING GOOGLE MAPS," 2 pages, uploaded on June 28, 2016 by user "Keep On Wrenching" [retrieved on 2025-09-30], retrieved from the internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH72WF7iTRk>, hereinafter referred to as Google) in view of Kumar (U.S. Patent 10,994,727 B1), in further view of Moore (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0063937 A1), in further view of Noguchi (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0312144 A1), in further view of Adireddy (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0207367 A1), in further view of Danford (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0405642 A1).
Claim 23 is substantially similar to Claim 16 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 16 above for analysis.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Google (Full title and bibliographical is as follows: screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "HOW TO AVOID TOLL ROADS USING GOOGLE MAPS," 2 pages, uploaded on June 28, 2016 by user "Keep On Wrenching" [retrieved on 2025-09-30], retrieved from the internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH72WF7iTRk>, hereinafter referred to as Google) in view of Kumar (U.S. Patent 10,994,727 B1), in further view of Harvie (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0054107 A1), in further view of Noguchi (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0312144 A1), in further view of Aikawa (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0017089 A1).
In regard to Claim 24, Google fails to teach that the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is a recuperation resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, that has been generated by the CPU of the computer device performing the steps according to the method for generating a recuperation resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation equipped with a braking electric recuperation system, moving along a portion of the route that includes a possible deceleration point, the method comprising at least the following steps:
Wherein the deceleration point is a possible deceleration point;
Wherein the vehicle brakes while moving along a portion of the route and passing the possible deceleration point;
Wherein the data associated with the possible deceleration point include one of the following: data associated with a mandatory deceleration point, data associated with a non-mandatory deceleration point, and/or a combination thereof; and
Wherein the data associated with a mandatory deceleration point may or may not include data associated with a mandatory deceleration point on a portion of the route containing a turn.
However, Kumar teaches that the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is a recuperation resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, that has been generated by the CPU of the computer device performing the steps according to the method for generating a recuperation resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation equipped with a braking electric recuperation system, moving along a portion of the route that includes a possible deceleration point, the method comprising at least the following steps:
Wherein the deceleration point is a possible deceleration point (see Column 12 line 67-Column 13 line 7 teaching that the deceleration point is a stop sign);
Wherein the vehicle brakes while moving along a portion of the route and passing the possible deceleration point (see Column 12 line 67-Column 13 line 7 teaching that the vehicle accelerates from a stop at the stop sign);
Wherein the data associated with the possible deceleration point include one of the following: data associated with a mandatory deceleration point, data associated with a non-mandatory deceleration point, and/or a combination thereof (see Column 12 line 67-Column 13 line 7 teaching that the deceleration point is a stop sign, which is a mandatory deceleration point); and
Wherein the data associated with a mandatory deceleration point may or may not include data associated with a mandatory deceleration point on a portion of the route containing a turn (see Column 12 line 67-Column 13 line 7 teaching that the stop sign is a four way stop sign, which indicates that the vehicle’s route may or may not include a turn).
Google and Kumar are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Google’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the data pertains to a mandatory deceleration point that may or may not contain a turn as taught by Kumar. Doing so could improve a vehicle navigation system by accounting for data related to a broader scope of route features, including deceleration points with possible turns.
Google further fails to teach wherein the first motor vehicle is equipped with the braking electric recuperation system;
Wherein the electric recuperation system is activated when the first motor vehicle is braking; and
Wherein resource efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of efficiency of the braking electric recuperation system of the first motor vehicle.
However, Harvie teaches wherein the first motor vehicle is equipped with the braking electric recuperation system (see Paragraph 184 lines 3-6, Paragraph 185 lines 9-15 teaching a vehicle system that has a regenerative braking system);
Wherein the electric recuperation system is activated when the first motor vehicle is braking (see Paragraph 184 lines 3-6, Paragraph 185 lines 9-15 teaching that the vehicle has a regenerative braking system); and
Wherein resource efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of efficiency of the braking electric recuperation system of the first motor vehicle (see Paragraph 185 lines 9-15 teaching that the vehicle telematics unit may determine the efficiency of the regenerative braking).
Google and Harvie are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Google’s invention to incorporate a regenerative braking system as well as a method to determine the efficiency of the regenerative braking system as taught by Harvie. Doing so could improve a vehicle navigation system by enabling it to determine how much energy the vehicle may require to reach certain points along a route, after considering the energy recovered via regenerative braking, in light of the efficiency of that system. This could make arrival time and refueling point determinations more accurate, rending the system more user-friendly.
Google further fails to teach wherein the data associated with a non-mandatory deceleration point include one of the following: data associated with a non-mandatory deceleration point on a portion of the route containing an incline, data associated with a non-mandatory deceleration point on a portion of the route containing a visual obstruction, and/or a combination thereof.
However, Aikawa teaches wherein the data associated with a non-mandatory deceleration point include one of the following: data associated with a non-mandatory deceleration point on a portion of the route containing an incline, data associated with a non-mandatory deceleration point on a portion of the route containing a visual obstruction, and/or a combination thereof (see Claim 6 teaching a vehicle driving assistance system wherein the vehicle has a control device comprising an uphill incline acquisition unit configured to acquire information on a degree of an incline of the uphill road, wherein the vehicle speed control unit is configured to, in a case where the vehicle is decelerated, when the uphill road has a steep incline, increase a magnitude of deceleration applied to the vehicle as compared with when the uphill road has a gentle incline).
Google and Aikawa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Google’s invention to incorporate a feature that acquires data related to deceleration as a result of the vehicle traveling up an incline as taught by Aikawa. Doing so could improve a navigation system by determining how much regenerative braking energy will be harvested or how much fuel will be lost during decelerations due to inclines. This could make arrival time and refueling point determinations more accurate, rending the system more user-friendly.
The rest of Claim 24 is substantially similar to Claim 21. Please see the rejection of Claim 21 above for analysis.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Google (Full title and bibliographical is as follows: screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "HOW TO AVOID TOLL ROADS USING GOOGLE MAPS," 2 pages, uploaded on June 28, 2016 by user "Keep On Wrenching" [retrieved on 2025-09-30], retrieved from the internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH72WF7iTRk>, hereinafter referred to as Google) in view of Kumar (U.S. Patent 10,994,727 B1), in further view of Noguchi (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0312144 A1), in further view of Getchius (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0161827 A1).
In regard to Claim 25, Google fails to teach that the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a portion of the route containing a mandatory stop point, that has been generated by the CPU of the computer device performing the steps according to the method for generating a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a portion of the route containing a mandatory stop point, the method comprising at least the following steps:
Wherein the mandatory point is a mandatory stop point;
Wherein data pertaining to the second motor vehicle is collected;
And wherein the first motor vehicle stops for a given period of time while moving along a portion of the route and passing the mandatory stop point.
However, Kumar teaches that the non-modified resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a portion of the route containing a mandatory stop point, that has been generated by the CPU of the computer device performing the steps according to the method for generating a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation moving along a portion of the route containing a mandatory stop point, the method comprising at least the following steps:
Wherein the mandatory point is a mandatory stop point (see Column 12 line 67-Column 13 line 7 teaching that the point is a stop sign);
Wherein data pertaining to the second motor vehicle is collected (see Column 12 line 67-Column 13 line 7 teaching that the second vehicle’s acceleration data is collected);
And wherein the first motor vehicle stops for a given period of time while moving along a portion of the route and passing the mandatory stop point (see Column 12 line 67-Column 13 line 7 teaching that the vehicle accelerates from a stop at the stop sign).
Google and Kumar are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Google’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the host vehicle collects data pertaining to other vehicles while coming to a complete stop at a stop sign as taught by Kumar. Doing so could enable the data recipient to determine if a surrounding vehicle is driving in an unsafe manner as compared to the host vehicle. This could increase the recipient’s situational awareness, or enable the recipient to report the vehicle. Both of these outcomes could increase the recipient’s safety.
Google further fails to teach wherein the data associated with the first motor vehicle include at least data associated with the actual movement time of the first motor vehicle and data associated with the maximum movement time of the first motor vehicle before a mandatory stop;
And wherein the data include at least data associated with the actual movement time and data associated with the maximum movement time before a mandatory stop; and
Wherein resource efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of the first motor vehicle stopping at said mandatory stop point for a given period of time.
However, Getchius teaches wherein the data associated with the first motor vehicle include at least data associated with the actual movement time of the first motor vehicle and data associated with the maximum movement time of the first motor vehicle before a mandatory stop (see Abstract teaching a vehicle position-determining system that can determine how long the vehicle has been in motion);
And wherein the data include at least data associated with the actual movement time and data associated with the maximum movement time before a stop (see Abstract teaching a vehicle position-determining system that can determine how long the vehicle has not been in motion); and
Wherein resource efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of the first motor vehicle stopping at said mandatory stop point for a given period of time (see Abstract teaching a vehicle position-determining system that can determine how long the vehicle has not been in motion).
Google and Getchius are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Google’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the system can determine how long the vehicle has been stationary or in motion as taught by Getchius. Doing so could improve determinations of when the vehicle will need to refuel, particularly if the vehicle is consuming energy while stationary. Determining how long the vehicle has been in motion could help determine wear and tear on the vehicle, which could improve determinations of wear and tear on the vehicle, increasing the vehicle’s likelihood of completing long journeys without experiencing maintenance issues.
The rest of Claim 25 is substantially similar to Claim 21. Please see the rejection of Claim 21 above for analysis.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments and remarks with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of Claim 14 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
All drawing objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
All 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Some of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of Claims 16, 18, 20, 21, 23-25, 28, 30, 32, 33, the Applicant argues that amendments to the claims have been made to distinguish between the “first motor vehicle” and “the vehicle in operation.” The Examiner disagrees. No modifications have been made to the claims that distinguish between the two. The Examiner recommends introducing language in the claims where the terms are initially introduced that set forth definitions of the two terms in order to differentiate them in scope.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of Claims 14, 26, the Applicant argues that the terms “route” and “track” are unambiguous, because “A route is, but not limited to, a strip of land adapted to be passable by motor vehicles, wherein the route may comprise, but not limited to, a road, a junction, an intersection, etc.” (Paragraph 117), and a track “can be used to generate a control signal to control the movement of the corresponding motor vehicle, and/or used to generate an information signal to inform a human operator that it is necessary to change the movement of the corresponding motor vehicle.” The Examiner maintains that the two terms are ambiguous because while the definition of a route is set forth in the Specification, the definition of a track is not. Disclosing what a track can be used for does not differentiate it from a route, if a route can be used for the same purpose.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of Claim 14, the Applicant argues that the Google reference “does not disclose ‘determining a location of the vehicle in operation on a first portion of a route,’” The Examiner disagrees. At 0:46 of the video, a route FOR A VEHICLE is shown (with a vehicle symbol in the top left corner). The route is from a location in Michigan to New York City. At the start location there is a blue dot that symbolizes the USER’S LOCATION. This dot is not necessarily where a Google route’s initial waypoint is located, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would ascertain. While the user does not explicitly state that he is physically located in a vehicle at the time, a PHOSITA would understand that the icon displaying the user’s current location within a tool used for navigating a vehicle could easily highlight the vehicle’s location.
The Applicant also argues that the Google does not disclose “determining at least one second portion of the route associated with the first portion of the route, wherein the second portion of the route includes a second waypoint for the vehicle.” The Examiner disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a route can be theoretically divided up into any number of “portions.” At 0:46 the route from Michigan to New York City could be divided in half, with the initial Michigan waypoint located within the first half of the route, and the second waypoint in New York City located within the second half.
The Applicant further argues that Google does not disclose “generating a non-modified second resource-efficient driving track for the vehicle in operation.” The Examiner disagrees. At 0:46 an initial route from the starting point in Michigan to New York City is shown. The route is generated against some initial constraint per the Google Maps algorithm (most likely distance or travel time) as would be understood by a PHOSITA. At 1:10, a second, modified route is shown that is generated against a different constraint (tolls), as shown by an increase in anticipated travel time by 32 minutes.
A new reference (Moshchuk) has been introduced in light of the amendment to Claims 19, 31.
Claims 15-18, 20-30, 32, 33 remain rejected for reasons similar to those used to reject Claim 14, or under the rationales provided in the previous office action.
The Applicant’s amendments, arguments, and remarks do not overcome these prior art rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Ramon Mercado, can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights