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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered.
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 12/10/2025. Claims 10 and 12 have been amended. Claims 1, 3, 9, and 18 have been cancelled. No Claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 10 and 12 are currently pending.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. With respect to claim 10, the applicant claims “physically adjusting of a travel route by the user”. Said limitation is not supported in the specification as a positively recited step. The specification discloses “providing navigation guidance to the user, via the route or the updated route, as the user travels from the starting location to the destination” i.e. a route in at least Paragraph 0029 but doesn’t provide means or elements of physically changing a route or measuring or detecting whether a route has been changed or adjusted by the user.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claim 10 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 10, the applicant claims “physically adjusting of a travel route by the user”. However, the claim is directed to a method of generating a route from a starting location to a destination. Accordingly, it is not clear to the examiner how the step of “physically adjusting of a travel route by the user” falls under the generation of a route by a processor of a computing device, since the user is what performing the adjusting step. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as a result or intended use and not a positively recited step of the method of generating a route.
The term “relevant” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. With respect to the term relevant, Paragraph 0004 of the specification discloses examples of what the crimes relevant to the user of the system can include but doesn’t give a formula or a criteria on to set or define said relevancy. Accordingly, The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as all crimes.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claim 10 and for failing to cure the deficiencies recited above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving data including a starting location, a destination and a relative preference of a user, generating segments of potential paths, performing a query on a crime database, running a weighted shortest path algorithm to generate a route to display it, receiving second data comprising whether the displayed data is acceptable, allowing the user to update the preference, running the weighted shortest path algorithm again, displaying the updated route, and adjusting a travel route based on navigation guidance provided to the user.
The recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” and “algorithm” language, the recited steps in the context of this claim encompasses the user looking at data collected and making a simple judgement on the data collected, for example a person could look at map data and mentally generate sections of a route from a starting location to a destination. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitation running a shortest path algorithm is recited in the specification as an example and covers a mathematical calculation. Accordingly, the limitations fall within the mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite a processor disposed in a computing device, a touch screen display, and a machine readable medium to perform the steps. Said limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving first and second data”, “relative preferences comprising a weighted selection triangle”, “displaying the route and the updated route” and “physically adjusting of a travel route by the user, as the user travels from the starting location to the destination, based on navigation guidance provided to the user via the route or the updated route”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving first data and relative preferences steps recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of user data for use in the generation step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying results step on the display is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the route from the generating steps), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “physically adjusting of a travel route by the user, as the user travels from the starting location to the destination, based on navigation guidance provided to the user via the route or the updated route” is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of performing an action in response to outputting the result from the generating steps), and amounts to mere post solution of outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor, a display and a machine readable medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving first data” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “relative preferences comprising a weighted selection triangle” is also a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because Ullrich et al US 2017/0102860 A1 discloses receiving user input related to three co-optimized objectives, factors, or parameters, and translating the user input into weight factors for a tri-variable weighting function. The additional limitation of “displaying…,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Furthermore, the additional limitation of “physically adjusting of a travel route by the user, as the user travels from the starting location to the destination, based on navigation guidance provided to the user via the route or the updated route” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that routing using the weighted-shortest path algorithm is conventional and well-known. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 12 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Dependent claim 12 discloses a weighted selection triangle and is considered as a way of entering data, i.e. mere data gathering. Therefore, dependent claim 12 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chokshi et al US 2018/0180430 A1 (hence Chokshi) in view of Ullrich et al US 2017/0102860 A1 (hence Ullrich), Fujita et al US 2008/0319640 A1 (hence Fujita), Hayward et al US 2014/0365246 A1 (hence Hayward), and further in view of Lewak US 2015/0199409 A1 (hence Lewak).
In re claim 10, Chokshi discloses a navigation system to identify routes that take safety considerations into account (Abstract) and teaches the following:
a computing device, a processor disposed in the computing device, a touch screen display in operable communication with the processor; and a machine-readable medium disposed in the computing device, in operable communication with the processor, and having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, perform the following steps (Paragraph 0014, Fig.5 and Paragraph 0085):
receiving first data comprising the starting location, the destination, and a relative preference of a user of the system for crime avoidance compared to at least one other objective, the at least one other objective comprising time of the route, cost of the route, and distance of the route (Paragraphs 0016 and 0023);
utilizing map data to generate segments of potential paths between the starting location and the destination (Paragraphs 0054 and 0059);
performing a query on a crime database to determine crime rates along the segments of potential paths (Paragraphs 0023, 0033-0034, and 0060)
running a weighted shortest path algorithm on the segments of potential paths, using the relative preference, to generate the route from the starting location to the destination (Paragraphs 0047, 0055-0056, 0060, 0068, and 0072);
and displaying, on the touch screen display, the route to the user (Fig.6 and Paragraph 0041)
physically adjusting of a travel route by the user, as the user travels from the starting location to the destination, based on navigation guidance provided to the user via the route or the updated route (Paragraph 0016),
the weighted shortest path algorithm using the crime rates along the segments of potential paths while generating the route from the starting location to the destination (Paragraph 0060)
the crime rates being rates for crimes relevant to the user (Paragraphs 0023 and 0082)
and the running of the weighted shortest path algorithm improving the computing device by minimizing computing resources dedicated to searching for crimes along potential paths between the starting location and the destination (Paragraph 0068)
However, Chokshi discloses typing in numerical weight values into a user interface, directly by adjusting user interface elements such as sliders that correspond to the weights, or indirectly by choosing a single pre-set option corresponding to crime avoidance and other objectives of the time of the route, the cost of the route, and the distance of the route (Paragraph 0023) but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
the relative preference comprising a weighted selection triangle of the importance of crime avoidance and two other objectives, the two other objectives comprising two of the time of the route, the cost of the route, and the distance of the route
the receiving of the first data comprising receiving the relative preference via touch input on the weighted selection triangle from the user via the touch screen display
Nevertheless, Ullrich teaches a method and system for receiving user input related to three co-optimized objectives, factors or parameters, and translating the user input into weight factors that utilizes a weighted selection triangle (Fig.3A and Paragraphs 0024, and 0054)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Chokshi reference to include a means to utilize a weighted selection triangle, as taught by Ullrich, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for an easy-to-use and intuitive techniques and systems for allowing a diversity of decision systems to gather a user's input regarding their objectives (Ullrich, Paragraph 0005)
Chokshi discloses the claimed invention as discussed above and Chokshi further teaches receiving second data from the user of the system (Fig.6, and Paragraph 0041) and allowing the user to update the relative preference (Paragraph 0023), running the weighted shortest path algorithm again using the updated relative preference to generate an updated route, and displaying the updated route to the user of the system (Paragraph 0016, and 0066), but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
receiving second data from the user of the system comprising whether the displayed route is acceptable and if the data indicates the displayed route is unacceptable, allowing the user of the system to update the relative preference
Nevertheless, Fujita discloses a system and method for guiding a vehicle through traveling routes to a destination and teaches the following:
receiving second data from the user of the system comprising whether the displayed route is acceptable and if the data indicates the displayed route is unacceptable, allowing the user of the system to update the relative preference (Paragraph 0064-0066)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Chokshi reference to include a means to receive data from a user whether the displayed route is unacceptable and allowing the user to update it, as taught by Fujita, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to confirm or deny a proposed route and permitting the user to update the selection (Fujita, Paragraphs 0064-0066).
Chokshi discloses user safety preferences including crimes but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
the crimes relevant to the user including outdoor homicides,
the crimes relevant to the user excluding domestic violence, insider trading, violations of city codes, and statutory rape,
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify to include violent outdoor crimes and exclude other types of crimes, since applicant has not disclosed that a specific type of crimes solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with different specification of a user.
Chokshi discloses user safety preferences including crimes but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
the crime database having a geographic resolution down to a city block
Nevertheless, Hayward discloses a system and method for underwriting and rating insurance products using a programmed computer system to receive usage information of a vehicle within a geographic area or location (Abstract) and teaches the following:
the crime database having a geographic resolution down to a city block (Paragraph 0005)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Chokshi reference to include crime data associated with a "block" of addresses on a city street, as taught by Hayward, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use data relevant or associated with a geographic area where the vehicle is used (Hayward, Paragraph 0001).
Chokshi discloses performing a query on a crime database as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
the query on the crime database comprising counting police reports for the crimes relevant to the user
Nevertheless, Lewak discloses methods of improving the associative information shown to the user and dynamically adjusted during user's navigation through the information in the data (Abstract) and teaches the following:
the query on the crime database comprising counting police reports for the crimes relevant to the user (Paragraph 0008, 0011, Fig.4 and Paragraph 0066)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Chokshi reference to include counting a number of matching items (more generally finding objects) indirectly associated with each detail selector (more generally another object) available for selection in a database search system or generally useful in other applications, as taught by Lewak, in order to improve the associative information shown to the user (Lewak, Paragraph 0002).
In re claim 12, the combination of Chokshi and Ullrich teaches user safety preferences including crimes and inputted via a weighted selection triangle but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
the importance of crime avoidance within weighted selection triangle further comprising sub-weights assigned by the user to homicide, robbery, and battery (Fig.2A, 2B, Paragraphs 0028-0030, and Paragraph 0035)
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify types of crimes as a user preference, since applicant has not disclosed that a specific type of crimes solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with different specification of a user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and that amended claim 10 recites the step of physically adjusting of a travel route by the user, as the user travels from the starting location to the destination, based on navigation guidance provided to the user via the route or the updated route implements that abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. As recited above, the claim is directed to a method of generating a route from a starting location to a destination. Accordingly, it is not clear to the examiner how the step of “physically adjusting of a travel route by the user” falls under the generation of a route by a processor of a computing device, since the user is what performing the adjusting step. Therefore, the step of “physically adjusting of a travel route by the user” is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “physically adjusting of a travel route by the user, as the user travels from the starting location to the destination, based on navigation guidance provided to the user via the route or the updated route” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of performing an action based on outputting the result from the generating steps), and amounts to mere post solution of outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, said limitation is treated as an additional element that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 12/10/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chokshi et al US 2018/0180430 A1 (hence Chokshi) in view of Ullrich et al US 2017/0102860 A1 (hence Ullrich), Fujita et al US 2008/0319640 A1 (hence Fujita), Hayward et al US 2014/0365246 A1 (hence Hayward), and further in view of Lewak US 2015/0199409 A1 (hence Lewak) as recited above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669