CTFR 18/746,859 CTFR 97661 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims • This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/746,859 filed on 06/18/2024. • Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. • This action is made FINAL in response of the Amendments filed on 02/23/2026. • The amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9-12, 14, 16-18 are rej ected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goo ding (US20130080052A1) in view of Peterson (US20170349161A1), further in view of Frelich (US 20160054471 A1) and Delizo (US20210394796A1). Reg arding Claims 1, 10 and 16 : Gooding teaches: A system for planning a route for a vehicle, comprising: a route planning module including a first processor configured to receive a destination, ( Gooding , para[16],” allows the navigational system to update a displayed map or generate a planned route ”, para[58],” planning a route between two geographic locations ”, and para [36], “ receives the planned route”, claim 1, “one or more computer processors”) the route planning module configured to perform: detecting that a road network in a geographic region is subject to a hazardous event that causes a hazardous condition in the road network; ( Gooding , para[16],” provide techniques for using location data associated with one or more snowplows to plan a route or provide current snow depth data to a user ”) identifying a subset of the road network that has been treated or will be treated within a selected time window to remediate the hazardous condition; ( Gooding , para[16],” allows the navigational system to update a displayed map or generate a planned route that reflects the current amount of frozen precipitation covering a road ”, para[31],” The location tracker module 104 collects and maintains a route history of the snowplow 102—i.e., what surface streets the snowplow 102 has cleared .”) and calculating a planned route for the vehicle to follow based on the destination and the identified subset of the road network; ( Gooding , para[34],” For example, as the snowplow 102 clears a section of a street , the associated snow depth 155 is updated accordingly. The route planning module 154 may then use the snow depth 155 for each road section to plan a route between two geographic points ”) wherein calculating the planned route is based on a capability of the vehicle to travel on one or more road segments having the hazardous condition , ( Gooding , para[65],” the route planning module 154 receives attributes of the vehicle ”, para [66], “the route planning module 154 may use the different aspects of a vehicle that determine how capable it is at n avigating snow-covered roads ”, and para [69], “The vehicle type may also be considered, such as whether the vehicle is a truck, a semi-trailer truck, a sport utility vehicle, a sport coupe ”, para [70], “The route planning module 154 may use one or more of the vehicular attributes to alter the travel cost for each of the roads within the region”) the capability of the vehicle is based on a weight of the vehicle, ( Gooding , para[66],” Examples of these aspects include the drive system of the vehicle, a vehicle's clearance, a vehicle type, a weight of the vehicle , whether the user vehicle is equipped with snow tires or snow chains”) and based on a road segment of the planned route being outside of the updated capability, updating the planned route in real time to avoid the road segment; ( Gooding , para[67], “ a two-wheeled motorcycle and bicycle offer much less stability on snow than a four-wheeled vehicle … The route planning module 154 may also distinguish between a front-wheel drive vehicle and a rear-wheel drive vehicle .”, and para[75],” The route of the snowplow may be tracked continuously which allows t he snow depth of the street to be reset in real-time . The updated snow depth may then be used to generate a cost of travelling on the street…to determine which surface streets to avoid ”, para[55], “ the route planning module 154 may dynamically update …the roads ”) and presenting the planned route to a vehicle user . ( Gooding , para[35],” the server 120 may generate the planned route or snow-depth map which is transmitted to the client system 150 for display ”) Gooding does not explicitly teach, but Peterson teaches: and the weight of the vehicle is estimated based on a number of occupants of the vehicle; ( Peterson , para[44],” The total weight may also be identified and/or estimated based on input from a sensor on the vehicle that senses the current total weight of the vehicle and all occupants and objects”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle route planning system of Gooding to include these above aforementioned teachings from Peterson in order to include the weight of the vehicle is estimated based on a number of occupants of the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to calculate the total weight of vehicle accurately, therefore improve the vehicle safety while driving in the hazardous conditions. Gooding does not explicitly teach, but Frelich teaches: continuously or periodically monitoring a performance of the vehicle during travel along the planned route ( Frelich , para[06],” a system for sensing slippage of a truck or vehicle travelling on a road or path and recording the location of the slippage ”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle route planning system of Gooding to include these above aforementioned teachings from Frelich in order to continuously or periodically monitoring a performance of the vehicle during travel along the planned route. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine the vehicle capability, therefore improve the vehicle safety while driving in the hazardous conditions. Gooding does not explicitly teach, but Delizo teaches: and a second module configured to perform at least one of controlling the vehicle to follow the planned route, ( Delizo , claim 2, “ transmitting , by the ECU, the one or more control commands to cause the vehicle to autonomously traverse the path to the target location .”) to determine an updated capability; ( Delizo , para[05],” updating a model that represents … capabilities of the vehicle ”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle route planning system of Gooding to include these above aforementioned teachings from Delizo in order to include a second module configured to perform at least one of controlling the vehicle to follow the planned route determine an updated capability. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid a road segment of the planned route being outside of the updated vehicle capability, therefore improve the vehicle safety while driving in the hazardous conditions. Regarding Claims 2, 11 and 17 : Gooding in view of Peterson, Frelich and Delizo , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1 . Gooding teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the subset of the road network is identified based on tracking data indicative of a position and movement of road treatment vehicles in the geographic region . ( Gooding , para[30],” the snowplow tracking module could execute on a computing system in the cloud and generate a route taken by a snowplow ”, para[55], “For example, the snowplow 102 more recently cleared the portion of 3rd Street between 3rd and 4th Avenue than the portion of 1st Street between 4th and 5th Avenue...the route planning system 154 received these updates at one time, it would add the most new snow accumulation (based on the snowfall rate) to the road section with the oldest timestamp—i.e., 1st Street between 4th and 5th Avenue. Accordingly, the route planning module 154 may dynamically update …the roads ”) Regarding Claims 3, 12 and 18 : Gooding in view of Peterson, Frelich and Delizo , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1 . Gooding teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the subset of the road network is identified based on an evaluation of current weather conditions and historical data related to past road treatments . ( Gooding , para[16],” allows the navigational system to update a displayed map or generate a planned route that reflects the current amount of frozen precipitation covering a road ”, and para [34], “Using the snowplow location data 122, weather forecasts, Doppler radar , and the like, the route planning module 154 may update the snow depth 155 associated with a section of a surface street found within a geographic region.”, para[31],” The location tracker module 104 collects and maintains a route history of the snowplow 102—i.e., what surface streets the snowplow 102 has cleared .”) Regarding Claims 7, 14 : Gooding in view of Peterson, Frelich and Delizo , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1 . Gooding does not explicitly teach, but Frelich teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein monitoring the performance includes estimating an amount of vehicle slippage . ( Frelich , para[06],” a system for sensing slippage of a truck or vehicle travelling on a road or path and recording the location of the slippage ”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle route planning system of Gooding to include these above aforementioned teachings from Frelich in order to include wherein monitoring the performance includes estimating an amount of vehicle slippage. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine the vehicle capability, therefore improve the vehicle safety while driving in the hazardous conditions. Regarding Claim 9 : Gooding in view of Peterson, Frelich and Delizo , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7 . Gooding teaches: The system of claim 7, wherein the planned route is calculated based on a destination and vehicle type associated with each of a plurality of other vehicles traversing the road network . ( Gooding , para[58],” planning a route between two geographic locations ”, para[19],” attributes of the vehicle that affect the vehicles performance in snow may be considered. Certain types of vehicles are generally better equipped to safely navigate snow-covered roads than others. For example, an all-wheel drive vehicle provides greater traction on frozen precipitation than a similar front-wheel drive vehicle . Moreover, snow tires or snow chains may also provide additional traction. All of these factors may be considered when formulating a cost of a section of a road ”) 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooding (US20130080052A1) in view of Peterson (US20170349161A1), further in view of Frelich (US 20160054471 A1), Delizo (US20210394796A1) and Wang (US 20200217677 A1) . Regarding Claim 4 : Gooding in view of Peterson, Frelich and Delizo , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1 . Gooding does not explicitly teach, but Wang teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the planned route terminates at the destination .( Wang , para[29], “alternate route terminates at the destination ”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle route planning system of Gooding to include these above aforementioned teachings from Wang in order to include wherein the planned route terminates at the destination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “avoids one or more locations en route to the desired destination where there is a given environmental issue”(Wang, Description). Regarding Claim 5 : Gooding in view of Peterson, Frelich and Delizo , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1 . Gooding teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein calculating the planned route includes updating an initial route determined for the vehicle, ( Gooding , para[60],” the route planning module 154 may generate a similar route as dictated by the traveling costs . In this manner, the user may avoid any unplowed roads ”) Gooding does not explicitly teach, but Wang teaches: the initial route terminating at an initial planned destination . ( Wang , para[29], “alternate route terminates at the destination ”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle route planning system of Gooding to include these above aforementioned teachings from Wang in order to include the initial route terminating at an initial planned destination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “avoids one or more locations en route to the desired destination where there is a given environmental issue”(Wang, Description) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6, 13, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooding (US20130080052A1) in view of Peterson (US20170349161A1), further in view of Frelich (US 20160054471 A1) and Delizo (US20210394796A1), Wang (US 20200217677 A1), Gorney (US20250196661A1) . Regarding Claim 6 : Gooding in view of Peterson, Frelich and Delizo, Wang , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5 . Gooding does not explicitly teach, but Gorney teaches: The system of claim 5, wherein updating the initial route includes selecting a new destination based on determining that the initial planned destination is not feasible given a capability of the vehicle .( Gorney , para[13], “ selecting a new destination when the energy required to reach the destination via each route is greater than the available energy output of the vehicle ”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle route planning system of Gooding to include these above aforementioned teachings from Gorney in order to include wherein updating the initial route includes selecting a new destination based on determining that the initial planned destination is not feasible given a capability of the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “safe and efficient travel of the vehicle”( Gorney, Description). Regarding Claims 13 and 19 : Gooding in view of Peterson, Frelich and Delizo , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10 . Gooding teaches: The method of claim 10, wherein calculating the planned route includes updating an initial route determined for the vehicle, ( Gooding , para[60],” the route planning module 154 may generate a similar route as dictated by the traveling costs . In this manner, the user may avoid any unplowed roads ”) Gooding does not explicitly teach, but Wang teaches: the initial route terminating at an initial planned destination or terminating at a new destination ( Wang , para[29], “alternate route terminates at the destination ”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle route planning system of Gooding to include these above aforementioned teachings from Wang in order to include the initial route terminating at an initial planned destination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “avoids one or more locations en route to the desired destination where there is a given environmental issue”(Wang, Description). Gooding does not explicitly teach, but Gorney teaches: …based on determining that the initial planned destination is not feasible given a capability of the vehicle . ( Gorney, para[13], “ selecting a new destination when the energy required to reach the destination via each route is greater than the available energy output of the vehicle ”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle route planning system of Gooding to include these above aforementioned teachings from Gorney in order to include wherein updating the initial route includes selecting a new destination based on determining that the initial planned destination is not feasible given a capability of the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “safe and efficient travel of the vehicle”( Gorney, Description) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8, 15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooding (US20130080052A1) in view of Peterson (US20170349161A1), further in view of Frelich (US 20160054471 A1) and Delizo (US20210394796A1), Karaa , "A Computer Vision-Based Framework for Snow Removal Operation Routing," in IEEE Open Journal of Circuits and Systems , vol. 5, pp. 81-91, 16 April 2024 . Regarding Claims 8, 15 and 20 : Gooding Peterson, Frelich and Delizo , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1 . Gooding teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is a road treatment vehicle, ( Gooding , para[17],” A snowplow is any vehicle that clears frozen precipitation off a road's surface”) Gooding does not explicitly teach, but Karaa teaches: and the planned route is calculated to cause the road treatment vehicle to follow a treatment path based on a traffic flow of one or more other vehicles in the geographic region .( Karaa , abstract, “we present an end-to-end framework for snow removal vehicle routing based on road priority ”, and page 84, “ Traffic volume is a necessary parameter for determining the streets’ priorities for snow removal.”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle route planning system of Gooding to include these above aforementioned teachings from Karaa in order to include the planned route is calculated to cause the road treatment vehicle to follow a treatment path based on a traffic flow of one or more other vehicles in the geographic region. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as “ more efficient snow removal operation can be achieved”( Karaa, Description) . RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS 112 (f) CLAIM INTERPRETATION . The amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. 102 Rejections . Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 7, 9-12, 14, 16-18 (See applicant’s response, page 8, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102”) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 103 Rejections . Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 4-6, 8, 13, 15, 19-20 (See applicant’s response, page 9, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103”) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700. 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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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. /KAI NMN WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/746,859 Page 2 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/746,859 Page 3 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/746,859 Page 4 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/746,859 Page 5 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/746,859 Page 6 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/746,859 Page 7 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/746,859 Page 8 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/746,859 Page 10 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/746,859 Page 11 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/746,859 Page 12 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/746,859 Page 13 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/746,859 Page 14 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/746,859 Page 15 Art Unit: 3664
Prosecution Insights