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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis below applies the Alice/Mayo framework as set forth in MPEP § 2106. Under Step 2A, Prong One, the Office identifies whether the claim recites a judicial exception, including the enumerated abstract-idea groupings of mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP § 2106 identifies mathematical calculations and mental evaluations, judgments, and opinions as abstract ideas. If a claim recites such an abstract idea, Step 2A, Prong Two asks whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. If it does not, Step 2B asks whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception, with any well-understood, routine, conventional finding supported by the specification, court decisions, publications, or official notice.
I. Step 1 — Statutory Category
Independent claim 1 is nominally directed to a “method,” independent claim 8 is nominally directed to a “system” including “at least one computer processor,” and independent claim 15 is nominally directed to a “computer program product” stored on a “non-transitory computer-readable medium.” Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 15 fall within one of the four statutory categories of process, machine, or manufacture. However, satisfying a statutory category does not end the eligibility inquiry because the claims must also avoid being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
II. Step 2A, Prong One — The Claims Recite Abstract Ideas
Independent claim 1 recites, in substance, the following operations: identifying historical routes having the same origin and destination; determining a cost associated with a lowest-cost route; determining a subset of inexpensive routes based on whether route cost exceeds the lowest route cost by less than a threshold; comparing routes to identify a route segment not present in the inexpensive-route subset; labeling the beginning of that segment as an expensive divergence point; receiving an origin/destination request; generating a route; identifying the expensive divergence point in the route; generating navigation guidance including augmented instructions associated with that point; and providing the navigation guidance to a computing device.
These limitations recite abstract ideas in at least two enumerated groupings.
First, the claim recites mathematical concepts. The limitations directed to “determining a cost,” determining whether route costs exceed the cost of the lowest-cost route by less than a “threshold amount,” and identifying a subset of inexpensive routes based on that comparison recite mathematical calculations, mathematical relationships, and quantitative comparisons. The specification confirms that route cost is determined using numerical or quantitative factors such as travel time, distance, traffic conditions, fuel efficiency, toll charges, fare charges, and the like. The specification further explains that an expensive route may be identified when the route cost exceeds the optimal route cost by a threshold amount, such as 20%. See specification [0015] and [0020].
Second, the claim recites mental processes. The limitations directed to identifying historical routes, comparing expensive routes against inexpensive routes, identifying route segments not found in inexpensive routes, labeling the beginning of such a segment as an expensive divergence point, identifying that point in a requested route, and deciding to provide augmented guidance are acts of observation, evaluation, comparison, classification, and judgment. These are the types of acts that can be practically performed in the human mind, or with pen and paper, by a human reviewing route histories, route costs, and a map. The claim does not require any particular technological manner of performing the comparison, any specialized data structure, any improved routing algorithm, or any particular improvement to computer functionality. The specification itself describes the core analysis at a functional level: historical route data is used to determine route costs, expensive routes are compared to inexpensive routes, and the point where an expensive segment begins is labeled as an expensive divergence point. See specification [0003], [0019]-[0022].
The Federal Circuit has treated claims focused on collecting information, analyzing that information, and displaying results of the analysis as directed to an abstract idea. In Electric Power Group, the court explained that collecting information, even when limited to particular content, analyzing information by mental steps or mathematical algorithms, and presenting the results of that collection and analysis are abstract when the claims do not require a particular inventive technology for performing those functions. That reasoning applies here. The claims collect route information, analyze route-cost information, classify route divergence points, and output augmented guidance based on that analysis.
Independent claim 8 recites the same abstract idea in system form using “at least one computer processor configured to perform operations” corresponding to claim 1. Merely reciting the same information-analysis process in processor-implemented form does not remove the abstract idea.
Independent claim 15, as provided, is directed to a computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and is described as following the same logic as claims 1 and 8, including identifying historical routes, determining costs, identifying subsets, labeling divergence points, and providing augmented guidance. Therefore, claim 15 recites the same abstract ideas for the same reasons.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong One.
III. Step 2A, Prong Two — The Claims Do Not Integrate the Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application
The claims, considered as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements merely apply the abstract route-cost analysis in the technological environment of vehicle route guidance using generic computing components and generic output instructions.
The specification describes the routing system at a high level as including a routing engine, data store, navigation engine, and data analysis pipeline, and expressly states that alternative embodiments may include more, fewer, or different components, and that the functionality may be divided differently. See specification [0012]. The specification further describes the client devices generically as desktop computers, laptop computers, smartphones, PDAs, tablets, or any other suitable device, including devices integrated into a vehicle. See specification [0013]. The network is likewise described generically as any combination of local or wide area networks using standard wired or wireless communication systems and standard protocols such as Ethernet, Wi-Fi, 5G, 6G, CDMA, TCP/IP, HTTPS, SMTP, and SFTP. See specification [0014].
The claims do not improve the operation of the computer, network, data store, processor, map database, route-generation engine, vehicle hardware, or display device. Instead, the claimed improvement is to the informational content and emphasis of navigation guidance provided to a user at a point where deviation may be costly. The specification states that the augmented instructions are intended to increase user alertness, reduce costly errors, decrease congestion and pollution, and improve road-network efficiency. See specification [0004]-[0005]. However, the claims do not recite a technological mechanism that achieves an improvement in computer functionality or navigation-system technology. They recite the desired result of identifying an “expensive divergence point” and providing more emphasized instructions at that point.
The augmented instructions also do not integrate the exception into a practical application. The specification describes guidance instructions as visual and/or audible instructions presented through a GUI or other interface, including audio cues, textual cues, visual icons, and the like. See specification [0028]. The specification further describes the augmentation as visual indicators, descriptions, specific alerts, vibrations, flashes of light, and/or auditory alerts. See specification [0032]-[0033]. These are generic forms of presenting information to a user. The claims do not recite a particular interface architecture, a particular display layout that improves computer usability, a particular haptic-control mechanism, or a particular vehicle-control operation. They merely present the result of the abstract analysis in an emphasized or augmented form.
Nor does limiting the abstract idea to the field of vehicle navigation make the claims patent eligible. The Federal Circuit in Electric Power Group explained that limiting information collection, analysis, and display to a particular technological environment is insufficient where the claims do not require a nonconventional computer, network, display component, or specific inventive technique for performing the claimed functions. Here, the field limitation to vehicle route guidance, turns, exits, time of service, or weather conditions merely limits the informational environment in which the abstract analysis is applied.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
IV. Step 2B — The Claims Do Not Recite Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea
The claims also fail to recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include a vehicle, a service request, an origin location, a destination location, a generated route, a computing device, a computer processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a routing system, a data store, a navigation engine, a data analysis pipeline, a network, and generic output alerts. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and are used as tools to perform the abstract information-processing steps.
The specification supports the finding that these additional elements are generic computing and communication components. As noted above, the client devices may be ordinary desktops, laptops, smartphones, tablets, or any other suitable device; the network may use standard communication technologies and protocols; and the routing-system components are described functionally and may be divided differently. See specification [0012]-[0014]. The specification also states that the described operations may be implemented by computer programs, equivalent electrical circuits, microcode, software, firmware, hardware, or combinations thereof. See specification [0040]. It further states that any steps, operations, or processes may be performed with one or more hardware or software modules, and that the apparatus may be specially constructed or may comprise a general-purpose computing device selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program. See specification [0041]-[0042].
Thus, the additional computer components are not claimed as a specific improved machine or as a nonconventional arrangement of components. They are invoked as generic tools to receive data, calculate/compare route costs, classify divergence points, generate instructions, and output those instructions. The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have repeatedly held that merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(f) reflects this principle, explaining that mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not meaningfully limit the claim. Electric Power Group likewise held that generic computers, networks, and displays used to collect, analyze, and present information do not supply an inventive concept.
The ordered combination also does not add significantly more. The ordered combination follows the abstract sequence of collecting route data, calculating costs, comparing route data, labeling a point, receiving a request, generating a route, identifying the labeled point in the route, and outputting emphasized guidance. The claim does not recite a particular technological improvement in route computation, map-matching, GPS accuracy, sensor processing, autonomous vehicle control, network communication, data storage, or human-machine interface operation. Instead, the ordered combination merely automates an abstract decision-making process for deciding when navigation instructions should be emphasized.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements, individually or as an ordered combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
V. Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-18 do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite that the service request includes a time of service and that the route segment is identified based on the time of service. Time of service is merely an additional data parameter used in the same abstract analysis. The specification confirms that route costs may vary by time of day and that the service request may include a time of service if pre-scheduled. See specification [0020] and [0027]. This does not improve computer functionality or add an inventive concept.
Claims 3, 10, and 18 recite that the threshold amount is a percentage. This limitation further confirms the mathematical nature of the claimed analysis, because it defines the route-cost comparison using a mathematical percentage threshold. The specification identifies a threshold such as 20% as an example for identifying expensive routes. See specification [0020].
Claims 4 and 11 recite a haptic alert, and claims 5 and 12 recite a visual alert. These limitations merely specify generic output modalities for presenting the result of the abstract analysis. The specification describes vibrations, flashes of light, auditory alerts, visual indicators, descriptions, and specific alerts as examples of augmented guidance. See specification [0030]-[0033]. The claims do not recite any improvement to haptic hardware, display technology, graphical user interface functionality, or vehicle-control technology.
Claims 6 and 13 recite that the expensive divergence point is a turn, and claims 7 and 14 recite that the expensive divergence point is an exit from a controlled-access highway. These limitations merely identify particular types of route maneuvers or route locations to which the abstract analysis is applied. The specification similarly identifies maneuvers such as lane changes, speed changes, turns, exits from and entrances to controlled-access highways. See specification [0029]. Such field-of-use limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 17 recites that the route segment is identified based on weather conditions. Weather conditions are merely another data input used in the same route-cost comparison and classification process. The specification identifies weather conditions as one factor considered in route-cost analysis and route generation. See specification [0020], [0027], and [0029]. The claim does not recite any improvement to weather sensing, weather prediction, sensor fusion, or vehicle operation.
Accordingly, the dependent claims merely add data parameters, mathematical thresholds, route-location content, or generic output modalities. These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
VI. 101 Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, claims 1-18 are directed to the abstract idea of collecting route information, mathematically analyzing and comparing route-cost information, classifying route divergence points, and presenting augmented navigation guidance based on that analysis. The claims do not recite a technological improvement to a computer, navigation system, vehicle, network, display, data structure, routing algorithm, or user-interface mechanism. The additional elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computing components and generic information-output techniques.
Therefore, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forstall (US 20090005082 A1), in view of Alten (US 20090182492 A1), in view of McGavran (US 20140365113 A1), and in view of Katzer (US 20080208450 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Disclosure by Forstall
Forstall teaches:
A method
“FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating an example method for route guidance.” ([0082])
Rationale:Forstall expressly teaches a method because it discloses a flowchart and process for route guidance. This accounts for the claimed recitation of A method.
for optimizing route guidance
“At stage 630, the route is analyzed based on disfavored route progressions or locations or preferences. The route can be analyzed, for example, using an analysis engine... The weighted route progressions can be used to rearrange the identified routes based on the user preferences.” ([0085])
Rationale:Forstall teaches optimizing route guidance because it analyzes route progressions, weights route progressions using preferences, and rearranges identified routes based on the analysis. Although Forstall does not use the exact word “optimizing,” the disclosed analysis and rearrangement of routes to improve route presentation renders for optimizing route guidance obvious to a PHOSITA.
the method comprising:
“At stage 600 disfavored route progressions or locations or preferences are received... At stage 610 the destination is identified... At stage 620, routes associated with the destination are identified... At stage 630, the route is analyzed...” ([0082]-[0085])
Rationale:Forstall teaches a method including multiple operative steps for route guidance. This accounts for the transitional phrase the method comprising:.
identifying a set of historical routes
“In other implementations, the preferences can be derived based upon historical data. For example, if a user travels from home to work every day for a year, and has used a particular road on that trip only once, a preference engine can derive that the user disfavors that road or area associated with the road.” ([0088])
Rationale:Forstall teaches using historical data reflecting repeated travel over routes. A PHOSITA would understand that deriving route preferences from repeated home-to-work travel over a year requires identifying historical routes or route instances from stored historical route data.
that each have a same origin location
“By way of example, if a route from a first location to a second location has been traveled a hundred times, and included a third location only 4 times, an inference can be made that the user disfavors the third location.” ([0077])
Rationale:Forstall expressly teaches routes from “a first location” to “a second location” traveled repeatedly. The “first location” corresponds to the claimed same origin location for the repeated historical routes.
and a same destination location;
“By way of example, if a route from a first location to a second location has been traveled a hundred times, and included a third location only 4 times, an inference can be made that the user disfavors the third location.” ([0077])
Rationale:Forstall expressly teaches routes from a first location to a second location. The “second location” corresponds to the claimed same destination location for the repeated historical routes.
generating a route
“At stage 620, routes associated with the destination are identified. The routes can be identified, for example, using a routing engine... In some implementations, the routing engine can use a navigation service... to derive one or more routes.” ([0084])
Rationale:Forstall teaches generating or deriving routes using a routing engine or navigation service. This accounts for generating a route.
from the requested origin location
“In some implementations, the routing engine can receive position information from a positioning system... The positioning information can be used as a starting point for the routing engine.” ([0084])
Rationale:Forstall teaches using position information as the starting point for route generation. The starting point corresponds to the claimed requested origin location.
to the requested destination location;
“At stage 610 the destination is identified... In some implementations, the destination engine can identify destination information from user input received using a user interface...” ([0083])
Rationale:Forstall teaches identifying destination information from user input and generating routes associated with that destination. This accounts for generating a route to the requested destination location.
providing the navigation guidance
“At stage 640, a route is presented... The presentation of the route can enable a user of the mobile device to navigate from a current position to a destination.” ([0086])
Rationale:Forstall teaches presenting a route to enable navigation. This is navigation guidance because the presented route guides the user from the current position to the destination.
• to a computing device
“The route can be presented, for example, by a presentation engine... to a user of a mobile device.” ([0086])
Rationale:Forstall teaches presenting the route to a mobile device user. A mobile device is a computing device, thereby accounting for to a computing device.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Forstall
Forstall does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
• for a vehicle,• previously traveled by vehicles• determining a cost• associated with a lowest cost route• in the set of historical routes traveled by vehicles;• determining a subset of inexpensive routes,• in the set of historical routes traveled by vehicles,• that each have a cost• exceeding the cost associated with the lowest cost route• by less than a threshold amount;• comparing each route not in the subset of inexpensive routes• to each route in the subset of inexpensive routes• to identify at least one route segment• that is not in any routes in the subset of inexpensive routes;• labeling a point• at which the identified at least one route segment begins• as an expensive divergence point;• receiving a service request• including a requested origin location• and a requested destination location;• identifying the expensive divergence point• in the route from the requested origin location• to the requested destination location;• based on identifying the expensive divergence point• in the route from the requested origin location• to the requested destination location,• generating navigation guidance• including augmented instructions• associated with the expensive divergence point; and• with the augmented instructions• associated with the expensive divergence point• in response to the service request.
Disclosure by Alten
Alten teaches or renders obvious:
• for a vehicle,
“System 100 can include one or more of vehicle computing system 102, navigation system 104 and mobile device 106. In some implementations, vehicle computing system 102 can be coupled to navigation system 104 and provides navigation system 104 with information related to the operation of the vehicle...” ([0014])
Rationale:Alten expressly teaches a navigation system used with a vehicle computing system and vehicle-operation information. This accounts for for a vehicle, when combined with Forstall’s route-guidance method.
• previously traveled by vehicles
“If a route is traveled repeatedly by the user, a rolling average of travel speeds for one or more locations of each route segment can be computed. The speed data can be stored locally or remotely where it can be accessed by the user's navigation system...” ([0021])
Rationale:Alten teaches route data collected during repeated route travel by a vehicle navigation system or vehicle-associated mobile device. Because Alten expressly ties the navigation system to a vehicle computing system, repeated route travel in Alten accounts for routes previously traveled by vehicles.
• determining a cost
“At least one custom travel factor (e.g., a time adjustment) can be determined based on the personal travel data... The custom travel factor can be used to modify a generic travel factor, such as an average speed or average travel time for the route.” ([0017])
Rationale:Alten teaches determining a route-related travel factor, such as a time adjustment, average speed, or average travel time. A PHOSITA would have understood travel time or time adjustment to be a route cost because navigation systems commonly minimize time, distance, or delay as route costs.
• associated with a lowest cost route
“In this example, the navigation system may compute an estimated total travel time for the route...” ([0024])
“Thus the actual average time to travel the route is... 72 minutes. When compared with the estimated travel time of about 60 minutes, the estimated travel time error is about +12 minutes.” ([0025])
Rationale:Alten teaches computing travel-time costs for routes. In view of Forstall’s teaching of comparing routes and recommending routes, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to identify the route having the lowest computed travel-time cost as the “lowest cost route.” This is a predictable use of Alten’s route-cost calculation in Forstall’s route-selection framework.
• in the set of historical routes traveled by vehicles;
“Each time a user travels a route, the actual time to travel the route can be computed and added to a rolling travel time average which can be stored in a local or remote database.” ([0022])
Rationale:Alten teaches collecting and storing repeated route-travel data over time. In combination with Forstall’s historical route set between a first and second location, Alten renders obvious determining route cost within the set of historical routes traveled by vehicles.
• determining a subset of inexpensive routes,
“In some implementations, data structure 700 can be a table containing a row for each route associated with a user. The columns can include data collected to facilitate classification by a classifier... The Route Type and Route Features can be used by the classifier to find routes of the same type and having similar features to the requested route.” ([0040])
Rationale:Alten teaches classifying route records using route features, including custom travel factors. In view of Forstall’s route comparison and Alten’s route-cost calculation, it would have been obvious to determine a subset of routes having relatively low travel-time cost, i.e., inexpensive routes, for use in route selection.
• in the set of historical routes traveled by vehicles,
“While a user travels a route, in some implementations the route can be transmitted to a navigation service through a network connection... The service accesses various route data resources to extract a feature set for the route.” ([0038])
Rationale:Alten teaches storing and classifying routes based on route data collected while routes are traveled. When combined with Forstall’s historical route set, this renders obvious selecting the inexpensive subset from the historical routes traveled by vehicles.
• that each have a cost
“In some implementations, a route can be divided into route segments and each segment can be associated with one or more custom travel factors. The factors can be represented in any suitable units or dimensions (e.g., speed, time).” ([0019])
Rationale:Alten expressly teaches associating routes or route segments with custom travel factors represented as speed or time. Such travel factors are costs for route optimization purposes.
• exceeding the cost associated with the lowest cost route
“When compared with the estimated travel time of about 60 minutes, the estimated travel time error is about +12 minutes. Thus in this example, the custom travel factor for this route can be +12 minutes.” ([0025])
Rationale:Alten expressly teaches comparing travel-time values and computing a difference. In view of Forstall’s route comparison, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to compare each route’s travel-time cost against the lowest route cost to determine whether it exceeds the lowest cost.
• by less than a threshold amount;
“Each new route can be processed by the classifier and labeled appropriately. In some implementations, each route can be given a similarity score that can be used to determine routes that are similar (based on similarity criteria) to the requested route.” ([0038])
Rationale:Alten teaches using criteria and scores to determine whether routes are sufficiently similar. In view of Alten’s route-cost values and Forstall’s route ranking/comparison, using a threshold amount to define which routes are close enough in cost to the lowest-cost route would have been an obvious implementation choice. Thresholding is a predictable and routine way to classify numeric route-cost values into acceptable and unacceptable groups.
• comparing each route not in the subset of inexpensive routes
“In some implementations, the average speeds for a route can provide a route signature that can be compared against other route signatures.” ([0039])
Rationale:Alten teaches comparing routes against other routes using route signatures. Once the inexpensive subset is identified using cost thresholding, it would have been obvious to compare routes outside that subset against the subset to identify distinguishing route features.
• to each route in the subset of inexpensive routes
“For example, an n-dimensional vector having average speeds as vector components can be compared with other n-dimensional vectors in an n-dimensional vector space to identify similar routes.” ([0039])
Rationale:Alten teaches route-to-route comparison. In view of Forstall’s use of multiple potential routes and Alten’s route classification, comparing each non-inexpensive route to each inexpensive route would have been an obvious implementation for determining how higher-cost routes differ from lower-cost routes.
• to identify at least one route segment
“Features can include but are not limited to: the number of segments, the average speeds for the segments, posted speed limits for the segments, route type...” ([0038])
Rationale:Alten expressly teaches route features including route segments and segment average speeds. Therefore, comparing route records would identify route-segment differences.
• that is not in any routes in the subset of inexpensive routes;
“The Route Type and Route Features can be used by the classifier to find routes of the same type and having similar features to the requested route.” ([0040])
Rationale:Alten teaches comparing route features to classify routes. In view of Forstall’s route-progression analysis, it would have been obvious to identify a route segment present in higher-cost routes but absent from the lower-cost/inexpensive route subset, because that difference would explain why a non-inexpensive route has a higher cost.
• labeling a point
“A classifier... can be applied to the features to generate labels or categories for the routes. Each new route can be processed by the classifier and labeled appropriately.” ([0038])
Rationale:Alten expressly teaches generating labels for route data based on route features. Applying a label to a point associated with a route segment would have been an obvious data-annotation implementation once a higher-cost segment is identified.
• at which the identified at least one route segment begins
“In some implementations, a route can be divided into route segments and each segment can be associated with one or more custom travel factors.” ([0019])
Rationale:Alten teaches route segments as discrete units of a route. A PHOSITA would understand that a route segment has a beginning and an end. Therefore, labeling the beginning point of the identified higher-cost segment would have been an obvious way to identify where the user first diverges into the costly segment.
• as an expensive divergence point;
“The factors can be represented in any suitable units or dimensions (e.g., speed, time). For example, the factors can be represented in minutes which can be added or subtracted to the estimated travel time...” ([0019])
“The disfavored route progressions or locations can include, for example, any route progressions or locations indicated by the user (e.g., through a user interface, frequency of use, avoidance of presented routes, etc.).” ([0082])
Rationale:Alten teaches route-segment costs, while Forstall teaches route progressions or locations that may be identified as disfavored based on historical use or avoidance. Combining these teachings, it would have been obvious to label the beginning of a high-cost route segment that diverges from inexpensive routes as an “expensive divergence point.” The exact label is a naming convention for the identified point and does not patentably distinguish over the functional identification of a costly/disfavored route-progression location.
• identifying the expensive divergence point
“Each new route can be processed by the classifier and labeled appropriately.” ([0038])
Rationale:Once Alten’s classifier labels route features and the combined Forstall-Alten system labels the beginning of a high-cost divergent segment as an expensive divergence point, identifying that labeled point in a route would have been a predictable use of stored route-feature labels.
• in the route from the requested origin location
“Thus if a user requests a new route, a time adjustment factor for a route in the same class can be used to improve the estimated travel time calculated by the navigation system.” ([0040])
Rationale:Alten teaches applying stored route classifications and time-adjustment factors to a requested route. Accordingly, identifying the labeled expensive divergence point in the requested route from the origin location would have been obvious.
• to the requested destination location;
“The Route Type and Route Features can be used by the classifier to find routes of the same type and having similar features to the requested route.” ([0040])
Rationale:Alten teaches analyzing a requested route using stored route features. Because the requested route is generated to the destination, identifying the expensive divergence point in that requested route also accounts for the route extending to the requested destination location.
Motivation to Combine Forstall and Alten
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall and Alten before them, to modify Forstall’s adaptive route-guidance method to use Alten’s historical travel-time/custom-travel-factor route-cost calculations and route-segment classification when analyzing route progressions and selecting preferred routes. Forstall already teaches analyzing route progressions using historical route information, preferences, disfavored locations, weighted route progressions, and route comparison. Alten provides a complementary and technically compatible technique for calculating route and route-segment costs using historical travel data, average speeds, average travel times, route-segment factors, route classifications, and similarity criteria. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of route guidance by objectively identifying route segments that make a route more costly than historically lower-cost alternatives. The combination would have involved the predictable use of known route-cost estimation and route-classification techniques in an adaptive navigation system and would not change the principle of operation of either reference.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Forstall and Alten
After combining the teachings of Forstall and Alten, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
• receiving a service request• including a requested origin location• and a requested destination location;• based on identifying the expensive divergence point• in the route from the requested origin location• to the requested destination location,• generating navigation guidance• including augmented instructions• associated with the expensive divergence point; and• with the augmented instructions• associated with the expensive divergence point• in response to the service request.
Disclosure by McGavran
McGavran teaches:
• receiving a service request
“In response to the selection of the route generation control 421, the integrated application of some embodiments sends the starting and ending locations information to a remote server to obtain the routes.” ([0107])
Rationale:McGavran teaches sending route-generation information to a remote server to obtain routes. This corresponds to receiving a service request for route generation.
• including a requested origin location
“The user may type in the starting and ending locations in starting and ending location fields 422 and 423 and select a route generation control 421.” ([0107])
Rationale:McGavran expressly teaches a starting-location field. The starting location is the claimed requested origin location.
• and a requested destination location;
“The user may type in the starting and ending locations in starting and ending location fields 422 and 423 and select a route generation control 421.” ([0107])
Rationale:McGavran expressly teaches an ending-location field. The ending location is the claimed requested destination location.
• generating navigation guidance
“The selection of the start control directs the integrated application to enter a navigation mode in some embodiments.” ([0111])
“The navigation application of some embodiments provides multiple different views during navigation and smooth transitions between these views.” ([0060])
Rationale:McGavran teaches entering a navigation mode and presenting navigation views and instructions. This accounts for generating navigation guidance.
• including augmented instructions
“The navigation application of some embodiments provides the user with several different notifications for an incoming turn on a route.” ([0007])
“In some embodiments, the navigation application presents non-audiovisual notifications (e.g., vibrations) to remind the user of an upcoming turn...” ([0010])
Rationale:McGavran teaches navigation instructions augmented by additional notifications, including audible and non-audiovisual notifications. These notifications are augmented instructions because they provide additional guidance beyond ordinary route display.
• with the augmented instructions
“In some embodiments, the integrated application combines the non-audiovisual notifications with the audible notifications to remind the user of the upcoming turn.” ([0010])
Rationale:McGavran teaches combining notifications with navigation guidance. This accounts for providing navigation guidance with the augmented instructions.
• in response to the service request.
“In response to the selection of the route generation control 421, the integrated application of some embodiments sends the starting and ending locations information to a remote server to obtain the routes. The remote server computes walking routes and/or driving routes and returns the computed routes back to the integration application.” ([0107])
Rationale:McGavran teaches that routes are computed and returned in response to a route-generation request containing starting and ending locations. Accordingly, providing the resulting route/navigation information is done in response to the service request.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, and McGavran
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, and McGavran before them, to modify the Forstall-Alten route-guidance system to use McGavran’s route-request workflow and augmented navigation-instruction notifications when providing guidance for a generated route. Forstall and Alten collectively teach analyzing historical routes, route progressions, and route costs to improve route selection. McGavran teaches a compatible navigation application that receives starting and ending locations, obtains routes from a server or locally, enters a navigation mode, and provides enhanced notifications for upcoming maneuvers. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to incorporate McGavran’s service-request and notification teachings to improve user awareness and reduce missed maneuvers at route locations identified by the Forstall-Alten analysis as costly or disfavavored. The modification is a predictable use of known notification and route-request techniques in a navigation system and would improve safety, reliability, and user guidance without changing the principle of operation of the combined route-analysis system.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Forstall, Alten, and McGavran
After combining the teachings of Forstall, Alten, and McGavran, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
• based on identifying the expensive divergence point• in the route from the requested origin location• to the requested destination location,• associated with the expensive divergence point; and• associated with the expensive divergence point
Disclosure by Katzer
Katzer teaches:
• based on identifying the expensive divergence point
“Geographic position information can then be allocated to the perspective view, and the perspective view can be referenced to a digital roadmap at the location of the geographic position information. In this way, the previously generated perspective view can be linked to a specific geographic position, so that, as the corresponding geographic position is approached, the accompanying perspective view can be called up.” ([0030])
Rationale:Katzer teaches linking enhanced navigation information to a specific geographic position and calling up that information when the corresponding position is approached. In the combined system, the expensive divergence point is the specific geographic point identified by Forstall-Alten. Thus, Katzer renders obvious generating or calling up enhanced guidance based on identifying that point.
• in the route from the requested origin location
“During the navigation process, the navigation device can check whether a complex intersection is coming up, or whether a corresponding perspective view is allocated to an upcoming navigation maneuver or its geographic position.” ([0031])
Rationale:Katzer teaches checking, during navigation, whether a mapped geographic maneuver point is upcoming in the route. In the combined system, this corresponds to identifying the expensive divergence point in the generated route from the requested origin location.
• to the requested destination location,
“During the navigation process, the navigation device can check whether a complex intersection is coming up, or whether a corresponding perspective view is allocated to an upcoming navigation maneuver or its geographic position. If so, the perspective view can be output on the display of the navigation device.” ([0031])
Rationale:Katzer’s check occurs during navigation of the selected route. Because McGavran and Forstall teach generating a route to a requested destination, Katzer’s maneuver-position check applies along that route to the requested destination location.
• associated with the expensive divergence point; and
“In this way, the previously generated perspective view can be linked to a specific geographic position, so that, as the corresponding geographic position is approached, the accompanying perspective view can be called up.” ([0030])
Rationale:Katzer teaches associating enhanced navigation information with a specific geographic position. In the combined system, the specific geographic position is the expensive divergence point identified by Forstall-Alten. Therefore, the augmented instructions are associated with the expensive divergence point.
• associated with the expensive divergence point
“If so, the perspective view can be output on the display of the navigation device.” ([0031])
Rationale:Katzer teaches outputting the enhanced perspective view when the corresponding geographic position or maneuver is identified as upcoming. Applied to the Forstall-Alten expensive divergence point, the provided augmented instructions are associated with that point.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer before them, to modify the Forstall-Alten-McGavran route-guidance system so that the augmented instructions provided by McGavran are linked to, and triggered based on, the geographic position of the expensive divergence point using Katzer’s teaching of associating enhanced navigation views with specific geographic positions and outputting those views when the vehicle approaches the corresponding maneuver. Forstall and Alten identify costly or disfavored route segments and the point where such a segment begins. McGavran supplies augmented navigation instructions and notifications. Katzer supplies the complementary technique of associating enhanced guidance with a mapped geographic maneuver location and outputting that enhanced guidance as the location is approached. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve route-guidance accuracy, driver awareness, safety, and maneuver compliance at locations where a route diverges into a higher-cost segment. The combination would merely apply known geographic-triggered display techniques to known navigation alerts and known route-cost analysis, yielding predictable results without rendering any reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer establishes The method of claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 2.
Disclosure by Forstall
Forstall teaches:
and the at least one route segment is identified based on the time of service.
See at least:
“In some implementations, the route information can include historical data. For example, historical data can include information about the average time associated with navigating a route progression. The average time associated with each of the route progressions that are included in a route can combined to provide an estimated total time to navigate the route. The route may then be compared to similarly analyzed routes based on estimated total time to navigate the other routes, which can be used to recommend a route to a user.” ([0068])
See also:
“In some implementations, the average time to navigate a route progression can be dependent upon the time of day the route progression is being navigated. For example, a section of highway in a large city may be slow at 8:00 am due to rush hour, while the same section of highway might be clear at 10:00 pm. Thus, the historical data can include a time of day for which the average is to be computed. For example, the analysis engine 430 can average the five navigations taken at the closest times of day to a current time.” ([0069])
See also:
“In some implementations, disfavored route progressions and/or locations can be disfavored dependent on a time of day.” ([0087])
Rationale:
Forstall teaches that route progressions are analyzed using historical data, that average time associated with navigating route progressions may be combined to determine estimated total route time, and that routes may be compared based on estimated total time. Forstall further teaches that the average time to navigate a route progression can depend on the time of day and that the analysis engine may average navigations taken at the closest times of day to a current time. In the Claim 1 combination, the claimed “at least one route segment” corresponds to a route portion or route progression identified through route comparison and route-analysis logic. Thus, Forstall teaches or renders obvious identifying the relevant route segment based on time-dependent route-progression information, which accounts for and the at least one route segment is identified based on the time of service.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Forstall
Forstall does not explicitly teach the following claim limitation:
wherein the service request includes a time of service
Disclosure by Alten
Alten teaches:
wherein the service request includes a time of service
See at least:
“FIG. 2B is a flow diagram of example process 208 for estimating travel time. In some implementations, process 208 can begin by obtaining a route request (210). The route request can be specified by user input. For example, a user can submit a route request by entering a destination address into a navigation system. The navigation system determines a route and estimated travel time based on the request (212).” ([0018])
See also:
“This custom travel factor can capture the driving habits or patterns of the user and other factors effecting time such as road conditions and traffic congestion. The factor can be time stamped or otherwise indexed for easy retrieval from a local and/or remote database. A given factor may only be valid for certain times of the year, certain days of the week and certain times of the day...” ([0026])
See also:
“If the user requests the Winter Work Route from their navigation system, then the navigation system can use the current season, month, day and time to generate a query for retrieving the custom travel factor of +20 minutes.” ([0037])
Rationale:
Alten teaches obtaining a route request specified by user input and determining a route and estimated travel time based on that request. Alten further teaches that custom travel factors are time stamped or otherwise indexed and may be valid only for certain times of year, days of week, and times of day. Alten also teaches that, when the user requests a route, the navigation system uses the current season, month, day, and time to retrieve a custom travel factor. Thus, although Alten does not use the exact phrase “time of service,” it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA for the route request to include, carry, or be associated with the time at which the route service is requested so that the system can retrieve and apply the appropriate time-indexed travel factor. This teaches or renders obvious wherein the service request includes a time of service.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer before them, to modify the route-guidance method established by the combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer such that the service request includes a time of service and the at least one route segment is identified based on the time of service. Forstall teaches that route progressions and disfavored route progressions may be analyzed based on time of day, including using historical data closest in time to a current time. Alten teaches obtaining a route request and applying time-stamped or time-indexed custom travel factors that may be valid only for particular times of year, days of week, and times of day. McGavran teaches a navigation application that obtains route information based on starting and destination locations and provides navigation instructions for the selected route. Katzer teaches associating enhanced navigation guidance with specific geographic positions along a route and outputting the guidance when the position is approached. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to use the time of service in the combined system so that the identified route segment and associated guidance reflect time-dependent travel conditions, traffic patterns, and historical travel behavior. The modification would have been the predictable use of known time-indexed route-cost data in a known adaptive route-guidance system, would improve accuracy and performance of route guidance, and would not change the principle of operation of the combination.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 3.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Forstall
Forstall does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitation:
wherein the threshold amount is a percentage.
Disclosure by Alten
Alten renders obvious:
wherein the threshold amount is a percentage.
See at least: “In some implementations, a route can be divided into route segments and each segment can be associated with one or more custom travel factors. The factors can be represented in any suitable units or dimensions (e.g., speed, time). For example, the factors can be represented in minutes which can be added or subtracted to the estimated travel time obtained in step 210”.
Rationale: Alten’s teaching that route-adjustment factors “can be represented in any suitable units or dimensions” expressly contemplates flexibility in how route-cost thresholds are expressed. Although Alten illustrates the threshold margin in absolute terms (e.g., a +12 minute custom travel factor, [0025]), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that expressing that margin as a percentage of the lowest-cost route is a predictable, functionally equivalent design alternative. Percentages are routinely used in navigation and other optimization systems to define relative thresholds because they are scale-independent—a 10% margin automatically scales with route length, whereas an absolute minute threshold does not. Choosing to express the allowable deviation as a percentage rather than as an absolute value is a routine design choice that does not alter the principle of operation of Alten’s cost-based route grouping. This conclusion is further supported by Alten’s route-classification framework, which uses similarity scores and criteria (e.g., Euclidean distance, least-square error) to determine whether routes are sufficiently similar—a concept that naturally encompasses relative (percentage-based) as well as absolute measures of closeness. Therefore, wherein the threshold amount is a percentage would have been obvious to a PHOSITA from Alten’s teachings.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer before them, to configure the combined route-guidance method such that the threshold amount used to define the subset of inexpensive routes is a percentage. Alten already teaches the concept of a threshold based on route cost (travel time) to identify groups of similar or acceptable routes, and expressly contemplates that route-adjustment factors may be represented in any suitable units or dimensions. Expressing that threshold as a percentage is a well-known, routine design choice that provides a normalized, scale-independent comparison across routes of differing lengths and travel times. The modification would involve only the predictable substitution of one common threshold format (a percentage) for another (absolute minutes), and would not alter the fundamental operation of the combined system. The remaining references (McGavran and Katzer) are already part of the combination that establishes the underlying method of Claim 1 and are fully compatible with this straightforward threshold-format selection. The motivation to adopt a percentage threshold is grounded in recognized design incentives, including improved accuracy, scalability, and ease of implementation.
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer establishes The method of claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 4.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Forstall and Alten
After combining the teachings of Forstall and Alten, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
• wherein the augmented instructions include a haptic alert
• and the navigation guidance further comprises non-augmented instructions that do not include the haptic alert.
Disclosure by McGavran
McGavran teaches:
• wherein the augmented instructions include a haptic alert
See at least:
“In some embodiments, the navigation application presents non-audiovisual notifications (e.g., vibrations) to remind the user of an upcoming turn on a route being navigated by the user when the navigation application is running in the background of the device... or when the device's screen is turned off.” ([0010])
See also:
“In some such embodiments, the navigation application provides different non-audiovisual notifications for the right turns and left turns. For instance, the navigation application of some embodiments uses a first combination of long and short vibrations... when the upcoming turn is a left turn. The navigation application of some embodiments uses a second combination of long and short vibrations... when the upcoming turn is a right turn.” ([0010])
Rationale:
McGavran expressly teaches non-audiovisual notifications in the form of vibrations used to remind the user of an upcoming turn. A vibration notification is a haptic alert because it provides tactile feedback to the user. In the Claim 1 combination, the augmented instructions are the additional instructions associated with the expensive divergence point. Incorporating McGavran’s vibration notification into those augmented instructions accounts for wherein the augmented instructions include a haptic alert.
and the navigation guidance further comprises non-augmented instructions that do not include the haptic alert.
See at least:
“The navigation application of some embodiments provides multiple different views during navigation and smooth transitions between these views. In some embodiments, examples of such views include a two-dimensional (2D) turn-by-turn view, a three-dimensional (3D) turn-by-turn view, and an overall route view.” ([0060])
See also:
“The navigation application of some embodiments has definitions of different navigation modes in which the navigation application differently presents turn-by-turn navigation instructions for a given route between a starting location and an ending location.” ([0061])
See also:
“The navigation application of some embodiments presents a first audible notification to the user when the distance between the current position of the device and the location for the upcoming turn becomes smaller than a first threshold distance. The navigation application presents a second audible notification to the user as the distance turns smaller than a second threshold distance... The navigation application presents a third audible notification to the user when the user reaches the location for the turn.” ([0008])
Rationale:
McGavran teaches ordinary turn-by-turn navigation instructions and map views for a route, including 2D and 3D turn-by-turn views, as well as audible notifications. These instructions do not necessarily include the vibration/haptic alert taught separately in McGavran. McGavran’s disclosure therefore teaches navigation guidance having ordinary, non-haptic navigation instructions in addition to augmented haptic notifications. Thus, McGavran teaches or renders obvious and the navigation guidance further comprises non-augmented instructions that do not include the haptic alert.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer before them, to modify the route-guidance method established by the combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer such that the augmented instructions include a haptic alert and the navigation guidance further comprises non-augmented instructions that do not include the haptic alert. Forstall and Alten establish the route-analysis framework for identifying costly or disfavored route segments and expensive divergence points. McGavran teaches a compatible navigation application that presents turn-by-turn navigation instructions and further provides non-audiovisual vibration notifications to alert the user of upcoming turns. Katzer remains part of the Claim 1 combination because it supports enhanced guidance associated with specific maneuver locations along a route. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to incorporate McGavran’s haptic/vibration alert into the augmented instructions associated with an expensive divergence point to improve driver awareness, reduce missed maneuvers, and provide an additional tactile warning at a route location identified as important by the combined route-analysis system. A PHOSITA also would have recognized that ordinary turn-by-turn instructions could remain non-augmented and need not include the haptic alert, while the special instructions associated with the expensive divergence point include the haptic alert. This would have been the predictable use of a known navigation-alert technique in a known navigation-guidance system and would improve safety, reliability, and user compliance without changing the principle of operation of the combination.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 5.
Disclosure by Forstall
Forstall teaches:
wherein the augmented instructions include a visual alert
See at least:
“The first stage 1205 shows that the integrated application displays a navigation instruction for a location along a route being traveled by the user carrying the device. The current position of the user is represented by the puck 1225. As shown, the integrated application displays the navigation instruction in a sign 1230, which indicates the next turn for the user to make is in 200 feet.” (Forstall, [0161])
Rationale:Forstall expressly teaches displaying a navigation instruction in a visual sign, where the sign indicates the next turn and distance to the maneuver. The displayed sign operates as a visual alert because it visually alerts the user to an upcoming navigation action. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “augmented instructions” encompasses navigation instructions supplemented with additional user-facing alert information. Forstall’s displayed sign 1230 therefore teaches or, at minimum, renders obvious wherein the augmented instructions include a visual alert, because the instruction is presented visually to alert the user of a specific upcoming maneuver.
and the navigation guidance further comprises non-augmented instructions that do not include the visual alert.
See at least:
“The second stage 1310 shows that the user is 80 feet away from the turn. In this example, the first threshold for the integrated application to provide the first audible notification is 80 feet and thus the integrated application plays back the first audible notification. In some embodiments, the first audible notification for a turn is a recitation of a navigation instruction for the turn. At the stage 1310, the integrated application reads the navigation instruction for the upcoming turn to the user.” (Forstall, [0166])
Rationale:Forstall expressly teaches navigation guidance that further includes an audible recitation of the navigation instruction. The audible recitation is a navigation instruction because Forstall states that the integrated application “reads the navigation instruction for the upcoming turn to the user.” This audible navigation instruction does not include the visual alert because it is presented by audio playback rather than by the displayed visual sign. Thus, Forstall teaches or renders obvious and the navigation guidance further comprises non-augmented instructions that do not include the visual alert, because the navigation guidance includes a separate non-visual instruction that is not supplemented by the displayed visual alert.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer before them, to implement the route-guidance method established for Claim 1 while further providing augmented instructions including a visual alert and non-augmented instructions that do not include the visual alert, as taught or rendered obvious by Forstall.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make and maintain this combination because the references provide complementary route-guidance, route-selection, and instruction-presentation teachings. Forstall supplies the navigation-guidance interface and instruction-delivery framework, including visual and audible navigation instructions. Alten contributes route-cost and route-comparison teachings used in the underlying route-selection method. McGavran and Katzer further contribute the remaining route/service-related teachings relied upon for Claim 1. Combining these teachings would have predictably produced a navigation method that selects or identifies route information using the claimed route-selection criteria and then presents guidance to the user through both visual and non-visual instruction formats.
The use of both visual alert instructions and non-augmented audible or non-visual instructions would have been a predictable implementation of Forstall’s navigation interface because navigation systems commonly provide multiple instruction modalities to improve user awareness, reduce missed maneuvers, and increase reliability under different driving or travel conditions. The combination would not change the principle of operation of the cited references because Forstall would still provide navigation guidance, Alten would still provide route-comparison logic, and McGavran and Katzer would still contribute their respective route/service-related features as relied upon in Claim 1. The modification would merely use Forstall’s known instruction-presentation technique within the combined route-guidance method, yielding the predictable benefit of improved guidance clarity, improved user notification, and more reliable route-following performance.
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer establishes The method of claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 6.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Forstall and Alten
After combining the teachings of Forstall and Alten, the following claim limitation is not explicitly disclosed:
wherein at least one of the expensive divergence point is a turn.
Alten strengthens the Claim 1 historical-route, cost, route-segment, and travel-time analysis by teaching route segments, custom travel factors, and historical route-segment travel data. Alten teaches that a route may include route segments and that travel data may be computed for each route segment, but Alten does not explicitly teach that the expensive divergence point is specifically a turn.
Disclosure by McGavran
McGavran teaches:
wherein at least one of the expensive divergence point is a turn.
See at least:
“In some embodiments, the first audible notification is an audible recitation of the navigation instruction for the current position of the device (e.g., ‘In 80 feet, go left around the corner at A St.’).” ([0229])
See also:
“When the process 2200 determines (at 2235) that the current position is at the location for the turn, the process 2200 presents (at 2240) a third audible notification to the user. In some embodiments, the third audible notification just tells the user to make the turn because the user has reached the location for the turn.” ([0234])
See also:
“When the process 2200 determines (at 2260) that it is a right turn to make, the process 2200 presents (at 2265) a second audible notification... When the process 2200 determines (at 2260) that the turn is not a left turn (i.e., the turn is a right turn), the process 2200 presents (at 2270) a different second audible notification...” ([0233])
Rationale:
McGavran teaches navigation guidance associated with a location for a turn, including determining whether the turn is a left turn or a right turn and presenting notifications when the user approaches or reaches the location for the turn. In the Claim 1 combination, the expensive divergence point is the point at which the identified route segment begins and is the location associated with the augmented instructions. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious for such a divergence point to be a turn because navigation route segments commonly begin at maneuver points such as left or right turns, and McGavran teaches providing navigation guidance and notifications at those turn locations. Thus, McGavran teaches or renders obvious wherein at least one of the expensive divergence point is a turn.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer before them, to modify the route-guidance method established by the combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer such that at least one expensive divergence point is a turn. Forstall and Alten establish the route-analysis framework for identifying costly or disfavored route segments and the point at which such a route segment begins. McGavran teaches navigation guidance and notifications associated with locations for turns, including left-turn and right-turn maneuvers. Katzer remains part of the Claim 1 combination because it supports enhanced guidance associated with specific geographic positions along a route. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to identify an expensive divergence point at a turn because turns are ordinary navigation decision points where a vehicle may enter a different route segment, diverge from a lower-cost route, or require enhanced guidance. Applying McGavran’s turn-location navigation teachings to the Forstall-Alten route-segment analysis would improve driver awareness, route-following accuracy, and maneuver compliance at a costly divergence location. The modification would have been the predictable use of known turn-based navigation guidance in a known route-guidance system and would not change the principle of operation of the Claim combination.
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer establishes The method of claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 7.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Forstall
Forstall does not explicitly teach the following additional limitation of Claim 7:
wherein at least one of the expensive divergence point is an exit from a controlled-access highway.
Forstall teaches adaptive route guidance, route progressions, disfavored route progressions or locations, historical route information, and route comparison. Forstall also teaches that a user may avoid certain route progressions or locations, including route progressions having particular road characteristics. However, Forstall does not explicitly teach that the claimed expensive divergence point is specifically an exit from a controlled-access highway.
Disclosure by Katzer
Katzer teaches:
wherein at least one of the expensive divergence point is an exit from a controlled-access highway.
See at least:
“The navigation device according to an embodiment of the present invention can be used to ascertain and display a navigation route, in particular from a vehicle position to a travel destination... This can be advantageous in that complex intersections, e.g., highway intersections, frequently exhibit several consecutive turns that the driver or user of the navigation system might have difficulty seeing, especially if not familiar with the surroundings.” ([0014])
See also:
“Based on the relative spatial position, e.g., distance, of consecutive intersections or turns, if need be along with other parameters, like expected vehicle speed or road class, an evaluation can be performed to determine whether several sequential turns should be consolidated and displayed in a single, shared representation on the screen of the navigation device.” ([0015])
See also:
“FIG. 1 shows a schematic view of an example for a perspective view of a complex intersection depicted or generated using the navigation device according to the invention or the method according to the invention. As evident, the depicted maneuver encompasses two consecutive navigation maneuvers. The first maneuver involves changing lanes from highway A66 to highway A5, while the first lane change initially comprises both successive traveling directions of the A5. This is followed immediately by another turn scenario, specifically the decision as to the direction in which to travel down the A5.” ([0064])
See also:
“Therefore, the complicated intersection according to FIG. 1 requires a first navigation instruction to exit the A66 onto the initially still common entry point to both traveling directions of the A5, followed right away by another navigation instruction to remain on one of the two straight lanes continuing in the direction of A5 Steinbach, Eschborn, Base1.” ([0064])
Rationale:
Katzer expressly teaches highway intersections and a maneuver requiring a navigation instruction “to exit the A66” onto the entry point toward highway A5. A highway such as A66 is a controlled-access roadway, and an instruction to exit the A66 corresponds to an exit from a controlled-access highway. In the Claim 1 combination, the expensive divergence point is the point at which the identified route segment begins. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious for such a point to be a highway exit because a highway exit is a conventional route-divergence location at which a vehicle leaves one controlled-access route segment and begins another route segment. Thus, Katzer teaches or renders obvious wherein at least one of the expensive divergence point is an exit from a controlled-access highway.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer before them, to modify the route-guidance method established by the combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer such that at least one expensive divergence point is an exit from a controlled-access highway. Forstall and Alten establish the route-analysis framework for identifying costly or disfavored route segments and the point at which such a route segment begins. McGavran remains part of the Claim 1 combination because it supports route guidance and navigation instructions provided to a computing device. Katzer teaches enhanced navigation guidance for highway intersections and specifically teaches a navigation instruction to exit the A66 toward highway A5. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to identify an expensive divergence point at a controlled-access highway exit because highway exits are ordinary navigation decision points where a vehicle may diverge from one route segment onto another, where missed exits can substantially increase travel time or route cost, and where enhanced guidance improves driver awareness and route-following accuracy. Applying Katzer’s highway-exit navigation teaching to the Forstall-Alten route-segment analysis would have been the predictable use of known highway-exit maneuver guidance in a known route-guidance system and would improve safety, reliability, and navigation performance without changing the principle of operation of the Claim combination.
Regarding Claim 8,
Disclosure by Forstall
Forstall renders obvious:
A system for providing augmented route guidance for a vehicle,
See at least:
“Systems can include a preference engine, a destination engine, a routing engine, an analysis engine, and a presentation engine. The preference engine can receive disfavored route progressions or disfavored locations associated with a user. The routing engine can identify routes, each route including a plurality of route progressions. The identification of the routes can be based on a current location and the destination information. The analysis engine can analyze the plurality of route progressions associated with the potential routes based upon the disfavored route progressions or disfavored locations. The presentation engine can present preferred routes to the user, the preferred routes being based on results from the analysis engine.” ([0005])
See also:
“Systems and methods as described can facilitate navigation of roads by directing a user to use routes that do not include disfavored route progressions or locations associated with the user.” ([0006])
Rationale:
Forstall discloses a route-guidance system including a preference engine, destination engine, routing engine, analysis engine, and presentation engine. The system identifies routes, analyzes route progressions, and presents preferred routes to the user. Forstall’s system is directed to road navigation and provides adaptive/intelligent route guidance. To the extent “augmented” requires enhanced guidance associated with a special route location and “for a vehicle” requires a vehicle-specific implementation, those aspects are supplied by the later-applied teachings of Katzer and Alten. However, Forstall is the proper primary starting point and discloses the base system for route guidance.
the system comprising: at least one computer processor configured to perform operations comprising:
See at least:
“The mobile device 100 can be, for example, a handheld computer, a personal digital assistant, a cellular telephone, a network appliance, a camera, a smart phone, an enhanced general packet radio service (EGPRS) mobile phone, a network base station, a media player, a navigation device, an email device, a game console, or other device or a combination of any two or more of these data processing devices or other data processing devices.” ([0015])
See also:
“In some implementations, the mobile device can also include routing instructions 374. The routing instructions 374 can be used to provide navigation guidance to a user of the mobile device. In such implementations, the routing instructions 374 can provide intelligent routing based on disfavored routes/locations, traffic, user preferences, and/or history.” ([0048])
See also:
“In some implementations, the routing instructions, when executed, can implement a destination engine 410, a routing engine 420, an analysis engine 430 and a presentation engine 440.” ([0051])
Rationale:
Forstall discloses a mobile computing/navigation device having executable routing instructions. When executed, those instructions implement destination, routing, analysis, and presentation engines. A PHOSITA would understand a mobile computing/navigation device executing routing instructions to include at least one computer processor configured to perform the recited operations.
identifying a set of historical routes previously traveled by vehicles that each have a same origin location and a same destination location;
See at least:
“In other implementations, the preferences engine 376 can analyze historical route information to identify routes or locations avoided by the user.” ([0075])
See also:
“By way of example, if a route from a first location to a second location has been traveled a hundred times, and included a third location only 4 times, an inference can be made that the user disfavors the third location.” ([0077])
Rationale:
Forstall discloses analyzing historical route information and gives an example of a route from a first location to a second location traveled one hundred times. The repeated route from the first location to the second location renders obvious a set of historical routes having the same origin and destination. To the extent Claim 8 requires those routes to have been “previously traveled by vehicles,” that vehicle-specific aspect is strengthened by Alten, but Forstall discloses the base historical-route identification logic.
generating a route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location;
See at least:
“At stage 620, routes associated with the destination are identified. The routes can be identified, for example, using a routing engine... In some implementations, the routing engine can receive position information from a positioning system... The positioning information can be used as a starting point for the routing engine. In some implementations, the routing engine can use a navigation service... to derive one or more routes.” ([0084])
Rationale:
Forstall discloses identifying routes associated with a destination using a routing engine and using position information as the starting point for the routing engine. This teaches or renders obvious generating a route from an origin/start position to a destination.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Forstall
Forstall does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
determining a cost associated with a lowest cost route in the set of historical routes traveled by vehicles;
determining a subset of inexpensive routes, in the set of historical routes traveled by vehicles, that each have a cost exceeding the cost associated with the lowest cost route by less than a threshold amount;
comparing each route not in the subset of inexpensive routes to each route in the subset of inexpensive routes to identify at least one route segment that is not in any routes in the subset of inexpensive routes;
labeling a point at which the identified at least one route segment begins as an expensive divergence point;
receiving a service request including a requested origin location and a requested destination location;
identifying the expensive divergence point in the route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location;
based on identifying the expensive divergence point in the route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location, generating navigation guidance including augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point; and
providing the navigation guidance with the augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point to a computing device in response to the service request.
Disclosure by Alten
Alten renders obvious:
determining a cost associated with a lowest cost route in the set of historical routes traveled by vehicles;
See at least:
“System 100 can include one or more of vehicle computing system 102, navigation system 104 and mobile device 106. In some implementations, vehicle computing system 102 can be coupled to navigation system 104 and provides navigation system 104 with information related to the operation of the vehicle...” ([0014])
See also:
“An estimated travel time for a route generated by a navigation system can be modified using a custom travel factor determined from personal travel data collected by the navigation system while the user is traveling the route.” ([0005])
See also:
“At least one custom travel factor (e.g., a time adjustment) can be determined based on the personal travel data (204). Using the custom travel factor, travel time can be estimated for at least a second route (206).” ([0017])
Rationale:
Alten discloses a vehicle-based navigation system and teaches determining custom travel factors, such as time adjustments, from personal travel data. Travel time is a route cost because it is a measurable quantity used to evaluate and compare routes. In view of Forstall’s route-comparison framework, it would have been obvious to determine the cost associated with the route having the lowest travel-time cost in the historical route set.
determining a subset of inexpensive routes, in the set of historical routes traveled by vehicles, that each have a cost exceeding the cost associated with the lowest cost route by less than a threshold amount;
See at least:
“The personal travel data can be used to classify routes so that custom travel factors for a route in a given class can be used to estimate travel times for other routes in the same class.” ([0005])
See also:
“In some implementations, it may be possible to classify routes based on route features which can include custom travel factors.” ([0038])
See also:
“Each new route can be processed by the classifier and labeled appropriately. In some implementations, each route can be given a similarity score that can be used to determine routes that are similar (based on similarity criteria) to the requested route.” ([0038])
Rationale:
Alten discloses classifying routes based on route features, including custom travel factors, and assigning similarity scores or labels. In view of Alten’s route-cost/travel-time factors and Forstall’s route-comparison framework, it would have been obvious to classify historical routes whose costs are within a threshold of the lowest-cost route into a subset of inexpensive routes. Using a threshold amount is a predictable numerical classification technique for identifying routes sufficiently close in cost to the lowest-cost route.
comparing each route not in the subset of inexpensive routes to each route in the subset of inexpensive routes to identify at least one route segment that is not in any routes in the subset of inexpensive routes;
See at least:
“In some implementations, a route can be divided into route segments and each segment can be associated with one or more custom travel factors.” ([0019])
See also:
“In some implementations, the average speeds for a route can provide a route signature that can be compared against other route signatures.” ([0039])
See also:
“For example, an n-dimensional vector having average speeds as vector components can be compared with other n-dimensional vectors in an n-dimensional vector space to identify similar routes.” ([0039])
Rationale:
Alten discloses dividing routes into route segments, associating route segments with custom travel factors, and comparing route signatures against other route signatures. Once routes are classified into inexpensive and non-inexpensive subsets, it would have been obvious to compare non-inexpensive routes against inexpensive routes to identify distinguishing route-segment features, including a route segment present in the non-inexpensive routes but absent from the inexpensive routes.
labeling a point at which the identified at least one route segment begins as an expensive divergence point;
See at least:
“In some implementations, a route can be divided into route segments and each segment can be associated with one or more custom travel factors.” ([0019])
See also:
“Each new route can be processed by the classifier and labeled appropriately.” ([0038])
Rationale:
Alten discloses route segments and classifying/labelling routes based on route features. A PHOSITA would understand that an identified route segment has a beginning point, and that the beginning of a route segment not present in the inexpensive route subset marks the location where the route diverges into a more costly route portion. In view of Forstall’s disfavored route-progression analysis, labelling that beginning point as an “expensive divergence point” would have been an obvious data-labelling implementation for identifying the start of a higher-cost divergence segment.
Motivation to Combine Forstall and Alten
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall and Alten before them, to modify Forstall’s processor-based route-guidance system to use Alten’s vehicle-based historical travel-time, custom-travel-factor, route-segment, route-comparison, and route-classification teachings. Forstall discloses a route-guidance system that analyzes route progressions and historical route information to present preferred routes. Alten discloses a technically compatible vehicle navigation system that determines travel-time-based route costs, divides routes into route segments, compares route signatures, and classifies routes based on custom travel factors. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve route-selection accuracy and route-guidance reliability by objectively identifying route segments that make a route more costly than lower-cost historical alternatives. The modification would have been the predictable use of known route-cost and route-classification techniques in a known processor-based navigation system.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Forstall and Alten
After combining the teachings of Forstall and Alten, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
receiving a service request including a requested origin location and a requested destination location;
identifying the expensive divergence point in the route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location;
based on identifying the expensive divergence point in the route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location, generating navigation guidance including augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point; and
providing the navigation guidance with the augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point to a computing device in response to the service request.
Disclosure by McGavran
McGavran renders obvious:
receiving a service request including a requested origin location and a requested destination location;
See at least:
“The direction control 460 opens a direction entry page 455 through which a user can request a route to be identified between a starting location and an ending location.” ([0104])
See also:
“The fourth stage 420 shows that the direction entry page 455 includes starting and ending fields for providing starting and ending locations for a route...” ([0106])
Rationale:
McGavran discloses a direction entry page through which a user requests a route between a starting location and an ending location. The route request is the claimed service request, the starting location is the requested origin location, and the ending location is the requested destination location.
identifying the expensive divergence point in the route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location;
See at least:
“In response to the selection of the route generation control 421, the integrated application of some embodiments sends the starting and ending locations information to a remote server to obtain the routes. The remote server computes walking routes and/or driving routes and returns the computed routes back to the integration application.” ([0107])
See also:
“At the fifth stage 425, the integrated application shows a map with the three routes 476, 478 and 480 from the starting location to the ending location...” ([0108])
Rationale:
McGavran discloses obtaining and displaying routes from the starting location to the ending location. In the Forstall-Alten combination, the expensive divergence point has already been labelled as the point where the route enters a higher-cost route segment. It would have been obvious to identify that labelled point within McGavran’s route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location so that the system can provide guidance at the relevant route location.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, and McGavran
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, and McGavran before them, to modify the Forstall-Alten system to use McGavran’s route-request and generated-route framework. Forstall and Alten collectively disclose a processor-based route-guidance system for identifying higher-cost route segments and labelling the beginning point of such a segment. McGavran discloses a compatible navigation application in which a user requests a route by providing starting and ending locations, and the system obtains routes from the starting location to the ending location. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide a practical service-request interface and to locate the labelled expensive divergence point in the generated route. The modification would improve usability, route-guidance accuracy, and system responsiveness and would have been the predictable use of known route-request and route-location-management techniques in a known navigation system.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Forstall, Alten, and McGavran
After combining the teachings of Forstall, Alten, and McGavran, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
based on identifying the expensive divergence point in the route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location, generating navigation guidance including augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point; and
providing the navigation guidance with the augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point to a computing device in response to the service request.
Disclosure by Katzer
Katzer renders obvious:
based on identifying the expensive divergence point in the route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location, generating navigation guidance including augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point; and
See at least:
“Depending on the relative spatial position of at least two consecutive intersecting points in the navigation route, the consecutive intersecting points can be depicted on the display as a single, shared perspective view.” ([0012])
See also:
“The perspective view can encompass graphic curves or substantially continuous arrows to highlight the prescribed route.” ([0019])
See also:
“Geographic position information can then be allocated to the perspective view, and the perspective view can be referenced to a digital roadmap at the location of the geographic position information. In this way, the previously generated perspective view can be linked to a specific geographic position, so that, as the corresponding geographic position is approached, the accompanying perspective view can be called up.” ([0030])
Rationale:
Katzer discloses enhanced visual navigation guidance in the form of a single shared perspective view, graphic curves, and continuous arrows. Katzer further discloses linking that enhanced perspective view to a specific geographic position and calling it up as the corresponding position is approached. In the combined system, the expensive divergence point is the specific geographic position in the requested route at which the higher-cost route segment begins. Thus, Katzer renders obvious generating navigation guidance including augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point based on identifying that point in the route.
providing the navigation guidance with the augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point to a computing device in response to the service request.
See at least:
“During the navigation process, the navigation device can check whether a complex intersection is coming up, or whether a corresponding perspective view is allocated to an upcoming navigation maneuver or its geographic position. If so, the perspective view can be output on the display of the navigation device.” ([0031])
See also:
“The navigation application of some embodiments is part of an integrated mapping application... Examples of such devices are smartphones... tablet computers...” ([0059])
Rationale:
Katzer discloses outputting the enhanced perspective view on the display of the navigation device during navigation. McGavran discloses that the navigation application operates on smartphones and tablet computers, and that routes are obtained in response to a user route request. In the combined system, the navigation guidance is provided with the augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point to a computing device in response to the service request.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer before them, to modify the Forstall-Alten-McGavran route-guidance system to generate and provide Katzer’s geographically linked enhanced perspective navigation instructions when the expensive divergence point is identified in the generated route. Forstall discloses a processor-based route-guidance system that analyzes route progressions and historical route information. Alten discloses vehicle-based historical route-cost and route-segment analysis for identifying higher-cost route segments and labelling the beginning of such a segment. McGavran discloses receiving a route request with starting and ending locations and generating a route in response. Katzer discloses enhanced perspective guidance linked to a specific geographic position and output as that position is approached. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these complementary teachings to improve driver awareness, route-following accuracy, and navigation reliability at a route location identified as a costly divergence point. The modification would have been the predictable use of known geographically triggered enhanced navigation guidance in a known processor-based navigation system and would not change the principle of operation of any reference.
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer establishes The system of claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 9.
Disclosure by Forstall
Forstall teaches:
and the at least one route segment is identified based on the time of service.
See at least:
“In some implementations, the route information can include historical data. For example, historical data can include information about the average time associated with navigating a route progression. The average time associated with each of the route progressions that are included in a route can combined to provide an estimated total time to navigate the route. The route may then be compared to similarly analyzed routes based on estimated total time to navigate the other routes, which can be used to recommend a route to a user.” ([0068])
See also:
“In some implementations, the average time to navigate a route progression can be dependent upon the time of day the route progression is being navigated. For example, a section of highway in a large city may be slow at 8:00 am due to rush hour, while the same section of highway might be clear at 10:00 pm. Thus, the historical data can include a time of day for which the average is to be computed. For example, the analysis engine 430 can average the five navigations taken at the closest times of day to a current time.” ([0069])
See also:
“In some implementations, disfavored route progressions and/or locations can be disfavored dependent on a time of day.” ([0087])
Rationale:
Forstall teaches that route progressions are analyzed using historical data, that average time associated with navigating route progressions may be combined to determine estimated total route time, and that routes may be compared based on estimated total time. Forstall further teaches that the average time to navigate a route progression can depend on the time of day and that the analysis engine may average navigations taken at the closest times of day to a current time. In the Claim 1 combination, the claimed “at least one route segment” corresponds to a route portion or route progression identified through route comparison and route-analysis logic. Thus, Forstall teaches or renders obvious identifying the relevant route segment based on time-dependent route-progression information, which accounts for and the at least one route segment is identified based on the time of service.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Forstall
Forstall does not explicitly teach the following claim limitation:
wherein the service request includes a time of service
Disclosure by Alten
Alten teaches:
wherein the service request includes a time of service
See at least:
“FIG. 2B is a flow diagram of example process 208 for estimating travel time. In some implementations, process 208 can begin by obtaining a route request (210). The route request can be specified by user input. For example, a user can submit a route request by entering a destination address into a navigation system. The navigation system determines a route and estimated travel time based on the request (212).” ([0018])
See also:
“This custom travel factor can capture the driving habits or patterns of the user and other factors effecting time such as road conditions and traffic congestion. The factor can be time stamped or otherwise indexed for easy retrieval from a local and/or remote database. A given factor may only be valid for certain times of the year, certain days of the week and certain times of the day...” ([0026])
See also:
“If the user requests the Winter Work Route from their navigation system, then the navigation system can use the current season, month, day and time to generate a query for retrieving the custom travel factor of +20 minutes.” ([0037])
Rationale:
Alten teaches obtaining a route request specified by user input and determining a route and estimated travel time based on that request. Alten further teaches that custom travel factors are time stamped or otherwise indexed and may be valid only for certain times of year, days of week, and times of day. Alten also teaches that, when the user requests a route, the navigation system uses the current season, month, day, and time to retrieve a custom travel factor. Thus, although Alten does not use the exact phrase “time of service,” it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA for the route request to include, carry, or be associated with the time at which the route service is requested so that the system can retrieve and apply the appropriate time-indexed travel factor. This teaches or renders obvious wherein the service request includes a time of service.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer before them, to modify the route-guidance method established by the combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer such that the service request includes a time of service and the at least one route segment is identified based on the time of service. Forstall teaches that route progressions and disfavored route progressions may be analyzed based on time of day, including using historical data closest in time to a current time. Alten teaches obtaining a route request and applying time-stamped or time-indexed custom travel factors that may be valid only for particular times of year, days of week, and times of day. McGavran teaches a navigation application that obtains route information based on starting and destination locations and provides navigation instructions for the selected route. Katzer teaches associating enhanced navigation guidance with specific geographic positions along a route and outputting the guidance when the position is approached. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to use the time of service in the combined system so that the identified route segment and associated guidance reflect time-dependent travel conditions, traffic patterns, and historical travel behavior. The modification would have been the predictable use of known time-indexed route-cost data in a known adaptive route-guidance system, would improve accuracy and performance of route guidance, and would not change the principle of operation of the combination.
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer establishes the system of Claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 10.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Forstall
Forstall does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitation:
wherein the threshold amount is a percentage.
Disclosure by Alten
Alten renders obvious:
wherein the threshold amount is a percentage.
See at least: “In some implementations, a route can be divided into route segments and each segment can be associated with one or more custom travel factors. The factors can be represented in any suitable units or dimensions (e.g., speed, time). For example, the factors can be represented in minutes which can be added or subtracted to the estimated travel time obtained in step 210”.
Rationale: Alten’s teaching that route-adjustment factors “can be represented in any suitable units or dimensions” expressly contemplates flexibility in how route-cost thresholds are expressed. Although Alten illustrates the threshold margin in absolute terms (e.g., a +12 minute custom travel factor, [0025]), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that expressing that margin as a percentage of the lowest-cost route is a predictable, functionally equivalent design alternative. Percentages are routinely used in navigation and other optimization systems to define relative thresholds because they are scale-independent—a 10% margin automatically scales with route length, whereas an absolute minute threshold does not. Choosing to express the allowable deviation as a percentage rather than as an absolute value is a routine design choice that does not alter the principle of operation of Alten’s cost-based route grouping. This conclusion is further supported by Alten’s route-classification framework, which uses similarity scores and criteria (e.g., Euclidean distance, least-square error) to determine whether routes are sufficiently similar, a concept that naturally encompasses relative (percentage-based) as well as absolute measures of closeness. Therefore, wherein the threshold amount is a percentage would have been obvious to a PHOSITA from Alten’s teachings.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer before them, to configure the combined route-guidance system such that the threshold amount used to define the subset of inexpensive routes is a percentage. Alten already teaches the concept of a threshold based on route cost (travel time) to identify groups of similar or acceptable routes, and expressly contemplates that route-adjustment factors may be represented in any suitable units or dimensions. Expressing that threshold as a percentage is a well-known, routine design choice that provides a normalized, scale-independent comparison across routes of differing lengths and travel times. The modification would involve only the predictable substitution of one common threshold format (a percentage) for another (absolute minutes), and would not alter the fundamental operation of the combined system. The remaining references (McGavran and Katzer) are already part of the combination that establishes the underlying method of Claim 8 and are fully compatible with this straightforward threshold-format selection. The motivation to adopt a percentage threshold is grounded in recognized design incentives, including improved accuracy, scalability, and ease of implementation.
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer establishes The system of claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 11.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Forstall and Alten
After combining the teachings of Forstall and Alten, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
wherein the augmented instructions include a haptic alert
and the navigation guidance further comprises non-augmented instructions that do not include the haptic alert.
Disclosure by McGavran
McGavran teaches:
wherein the augmented instructions include a haptic alert
See at least:
“In some embodiments, the navigation application presents non-audiovisual notifications (e.g., vibrations) to remind the user of an upcoming turn on a route being navigated by the user when the navigation application is running in the background of the device... or when the device's screen is turned off.” ([0010])
See also:
“In some such embodiments, the navigation application provides different non-audiovisual notifications for the right turns and left turns. For instance, the navigation application of some embodiments uses a first combination of long and short vibrations... when the upcoming turn is a left turn. The navigation application of some embodiments uses a second combination of long and short vibrations... when the upcoming turn is a right turn.” ([0010])
Rationale:
McGavran expressly teaches non-audiovisual notifications in the form of vibrations used to remind the user of an upcoming turn. A vibration notification is a haptic alert because it provides tactile feedback to the user. In the Claim 1 combination, the augmented instructions are the additional instructions associated with the expensive divergence point. Incorporating McGavran’s vibration notification into those augmented instructions accounts for wherein the augmented instructions include a haptic alert.
and the navigation guidance further comprises non-augmented instructions that do not include the haptic alert.
See at least:
“The navigation application of some embodiments provides multiple different views during navigation and smooth transitions between these views. In some embodiments, examples of such views include a two-dimensional (2D) turn-by-turn view, a three-dimensional (3D) turn-by-turn view, and an overall route view.” ([0060])
See also:
“The navigation application of some embodiments has definitions of different navigation modes in which the navigation application differently presents turn-by-turn navigation instructions for a given route between a starting location and an ending location.” ([0061])
See also:
“The navigation application of some embodiments presents a first audible notification to the user when the distance between the current position of the device and the location for the upcoming turn becomes smaller than a first threshold distance. The navigation application presents a second audible notification to the user as the distance turns smaller than a second threshold distance... The navigation application presents a third audible notification to the user when the user reaches the location for the turn.” ([0008])
Rationale:
McGavran teaches ordinary turn-by-turn navigation instructions and map views for a route, including 2D and 3D turn-by-turn views, as well as audible notifications. These instructions do not necessarily include the vibration/haptic alert taught separately in McGavran. McGavran’s disclosure therefore teaches navigation guidance having ordinary, non-haptic navigation instructions in addition to augmented haptic notifications. Thus, McGavran teaches or renders obvious the navigation guidance further comprises non-augmented instructions that do not include the haptic alert.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer before them, to modify the route-guidance method established by the combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer such that the augmented instructions include a haptic alert and the navigation guidance further comprises non-augmented instructions that do not include the haptic alert. Forstall and Alten establish the route-analysis framework for identifying costly or disfavored route segments and expensive divergence points. McGavran teaches a compatible navigation application that presents turn-by-turn navigation instructions and further provides non-audiovisual vibration notifications to alert the user of upcoming turns. Katzer remains part of the Claim 8 combination because it supports enhanced guidance associated with specific maneuver locations along a route. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to incorporate McGavran’s haptic/vibration alert into the augmented instructions associated with an expensive divergence point to improve driver awareness, reduce missed maneuvers, and provide an additional tactile warning at a route location identified as important by the combined route-analysis system. A PHOSITA also would have recognized that ordinary turn-by-turn instructions could remain non-augmented and need not include the haptic alert, while the special instructions associated with the expensive divergence point include the haptic alert. This would have been the predictable use of a known navigation-alert technique in a known navigation-guidance system and would improve safety, reliability, and user compliance without changing the principle of operation of the combination.
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer establishes the system of Claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 12.
Disclosure by Forstall
Forstall teaches:
wherein the augmented instructions include a visual alert
See at least:
“The first stage 1205 shows that the integrated application displays a navigation instruction for a location along a route being traveled by the user carrying the device. The current position of the user is represented by the puck 1225. As shown, the integrated application displays the navigation instruction in a sign 1230, which indicates the next turn for the user to make is in 200 feet.” (Forstall, [0161])
Rationale:Forstall expressly teaches displaying a navigation instruction in a visual sign, where the sign indicates the next turn and distance to the maneuver. The displayed sign operates as a visual alert because it visually alerts the user to an upcoming navigation action. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “augmented instructions” encompasses navigation instructions supplemented with additional user-facing alert information. Forstall’s displayed sign 1230 therefore teaches or, at minimum, renders obvious wherein the augmented instructions include a visual alert, because the instruction is presented visually to alert the user of a specific upcoming maneuver.
and the navigation guidance further comprises non-augmented instructions that do not include the visual alert.
See at least:
“The second stage 1310 shows that the user is 80 feet away from the turn. In this example, the first threshold for the integrated application to provide the first audible notification is 80 feet and thus the integrated application plays back the first audible notification. In some embodiments, the first audible notification for a turn is a recitation of a navigation instruction for the turn. At the stage 1310, the integrated application reads the navigation instruction for the upcoming turn to the user.” (Forstall, [0166])
Rationale:Forstall expressly teaches navigation guidance that further includes an audible recitation of the navigation instruction. The audible recitation is a navigation instruction because Forstall states that the integrated application “reads the navigation instruction for the upcoming turn to the user.” This audible navigation instruction does not include the visual alert because it is presented by audio playback rather than by the displayed visual sign. Thus, Forstall teaches or renders obvious and the navigation guidance further comprises non-augmented instructions that do not include the visual alert, because the navigation guidance includes a separate non-visual instruction that is not supplemented by the displayed visual alert.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer before them, to implement the route-guidance method established for Claim 1 while further providing augmented instructions including a visual alert and non-augmented instructions that do not include the visual alert, as taught or rendered obvious by Forstall.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make and maintain this combination because the references provide complementary route-guidance, route-selection, and instruction-presentation teachings. Forstall supplies the navigation-guidance interface and instruction-delivery framework, including visual and audible navigation instructions. Alten contributes route-cost and route-comparison teachings used in the underlying route-selection method. McGavran and Katzer further contribute the remaining route/service-related teachings relied upon for Claim 8. Combining these teachings would have predictably produced a navigation method that selects or identifies route information using the claimed route-selection criteria and then presents guidance to the user through both visual and non-visual instruction formats.
The use of both visual alert instructions and non-augmented audible or non-visual instructions would have been a predictable implementation of Forstall’s navigation interface because navigation systems commonly provide multiple instruction modalities to improve user awareness, reduce missed maneuvers, and increase reliability under different driving or travel conditions. The combination would not change the principle of operation of the cited references because Forstall would still provide navigation guidance, Alten would still provide route-comparison logic, and McGavran and Katzer would still contribute their respective route/service-related features as relied upon in Claim 8. The modification would merely use Forstall’s known instruction-presentation technique within the combined route-guidance method, yielding the predictable benefit of improved guidance clarity, improved user notification, and more reliable route-following performance.
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer establishes The system of claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 13.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Forstall and Alten
After combining the teachings of Forstall and Alten, the following claim limitation is not explicitly disclosed:
wherein at least one of the expensive divergence point is a turn.
Alten strengthens the Claim 8 historical-route, cost, route-segment, and travel-time analysis by teaching route segments, custom travel factors, and historical route-segment travel data. Alten teaches that a route may include route segments and that travel data may be computed for each route segment, but Alten does not explicitly teach that the expensive divergence point is specifically a turn.
Disclosure by McGavran
McGavran renders obvious:
wherein at least one of the expensive divergence point is a turn.
See at least:
“In some embodiments, the first audible notification is an audible recitation of the navigation instruction for the current position of the device (e.g., ‘In 80 feet, go left around the corner at A St.’).” ([0229])
See also:
“When the process 2200 determines (at 2235) that the current position is at the location for the turn, the process 2200 presents (at 2240) a third audible notification to the user. In some embodiments, the third audible notification just tells the user to make the turn because the user has reached the location for the turn.” ([0234])
See also:
“When the process 2200 determines (at 2260) that it is a right turn to make, the process 2200 presents (at 2265) a second audible notification... When the process 2200 determines (at 2260) that the turn is not a left turn (i.e., the turn is a right turn), the process 2200 presents (at 2270) a different second audible notification...” ([0233])
Rationale:
McGavran teaches navigation guidance associated with a location for a turn, including determining whether the turn is a left turn or a right turn and presenting notifications when the user approaches or reaches the location for the turn. In the Claim 1 combination, the expensive divergence point is the point at which the identified route segment begins and is the location associated with the augmented instructions. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious for such a divergence point to be a turn because navigation route segments commonly begin at maneuver points such as left or right turns, and McGavran teaches providing navigation guidance and notifications at those turn locations. Thus, McGavran teaches or renders obvious wherein at least one of the expensive divergence point is a turn.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer before them, to modify the route-guidance method established by the combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer such that at least one expensive divergence point is a turn. Forstall and Alten establish the route-analysis framework for identifying costly or disfavored route segments and the point at which such a route segment begins. McGavran teaches navigation guidance and notifications associated with locations for turns, including left-turn and right-turn maneuvers. Katzer remains part of the Claim 8 combination because it supports enhanced guidance associated with specific geographic positions along a route. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to identify an expensive divergence point at a turn because turns are ordinary navigation decision points where a vehicle may enter a different route segment, diverge from a lower-cost route, or require enhanced guidance. Applying McGavran’s turn-location navigation teachings to the Forstall-Alten route-segment analysis would improve driver awareness, route-following accuracy, and maneuver compliance at a costly divergence location. The modification would have been the predictable use of known turn-based navigation guidance in a known route-guidance system and would not change the principle of operation of the Claim combination.
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer establishes The system of claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 14.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Forstall
Forstall does not explicitly teach the following additional limitation of Claim 7:
wherein at least one of the expensive divergence point is an exit from a controlled-access highway.
Disclosure by Katzer
Katzer discloses::
wherein at least one of the expensive divergence point is an exit from a controlled-access highway.
See at least:
“The navigation device according to an embodiment of the present invention can be used to ascertain and display a navigation route, in particular from a vehicle position to a travel destination... This can be advantageous in that complex intersections, e.g., highway intersections, frequently exhibit several consecutive turns that the driver or user of the navigation system might have difficulty seeing, especially if not familiar with the surroundings.” ([0014])
See also:
“Based on the relative spatial position, e.g., distance, of consecutive intersections or turns, if need be along with other parameters, like expected vehicle speed or road class, an evaluation can be performed to determine whether several sequential turns should be consolidated and displayed in a single, shared representation on the screen of the navigation device.” ([0015])
See also:
“FIG. 1 shows a schematic view of an example for a perspective view of a complex intersection depicted or generated using the navigation device according to the invention or the method according to the invention. As evident, the depicted maneuver encompasses two consecutive navigation maneuvers. The first maneuver involves changing lanes from highway A66 to highway A5, while the first lane change initially comprises both successive traveling directions of the A5. This is followed immediately by another turn scenario, specifically the decision as to the direction in which to travel down the A5.” ([0064])
See also:
“Therefore, the complicated intersection according to FIG. 1 requires a first navigation instruction to exit the A66 onto the initially still common entry point to both traveling directions of the A5, followed right away by another navigation instruction to remain on one of the two straight lanes continuing in the direction of A5 Steinbach, Eschborn, Base1.” ([0064])
Rationale:
Katzer expressly teaches highway intersections and a maneuver requiring a navigation instruction “to exit the A66” onto the entry point toward highway A5. A highway such as A66 is a controlled-access roadway, and an instruction to exit the A66 corresponds to an exit from a controlled-access highway. In the Claim 1 combination, the expensive divergence point is the point at which the identified route segment begins. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious for such a point to be a highway exit because a highway exit is a conventional route-divergence location at which a vehicle leaves one controlled-access route segment and begins another route segment. Thus, Katzer teaches or renders obvious wherein at least one of the expensive divergence point is an exit from a controlled-access highway.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer before them, to modify the route-guidance system established by the combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer such that at least one expensive divergence point is an exit from a controlled-access highway. Forstall and Alten establish the route-analysis framework for identifying costly or disfavored route segments and the point at which such a route segment begins. McGavran remains part of the Claim 8 combination because it supports route guidance and navigation instructions provided to a computing device. Katzer teaches enhanced navigation guidance for highway intersections and specifically teaches a navigation instruction to exit the A66 toward highway A5. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to identify an expensive divergence point at a controlled-access highway exit because highway exits are ordinary navigation decision points where a vehicle may diverge from one route segment onto another, where missed exits can substantially increase travel time or route cost, and where enhanced guidance improves driver awareness and route-following accuracy. Applying Katzer’s highway-exit navigation teaching to the Forstall-Alten route-segment analysis would have been the predictable use of known highway-exit maneuver guidance in a known route-guidance system and would improve safety, reliability, and navigation performance without changing the principle of operation of the Claim combination.
Regarding Claim 15,
Disclosure by Forstall
Forstall renders obvious:
A computer program product for optimizing route guidance for a vehicle,
See at least:
“In one aspect, systems, methods, apparatuses and computer program products are provided.” ([0004])
See also:
“The memory 350 may include graphical user interface instructions 356 to facilitate graphic user interface processing; sensor processing instructions 358 to facilitate sensor-related processing and functions; phone instructions 360 to facilitate phone-related processes and functions; electronic messaging instructions 362 to facilitate electronic-messaging related processes and functions; web browsing instructions 364 to facilitate web browsing-related processes and functions; media processing instructions 366 to facilitate media processing-related processes and functions; GPS/Navigation instructions 368 to facilitate GPS and navigation-related processes and instructions; camera instructions 370 to facilitate camera-related processes and functions; and/or other software instructions 372 to facilitate other processes and functions.” ([0047])
See also:
“In some implementations, the mobile device can also include routing instructions 374. The routing instructions 374 can be used to provide navigation guidance to a user of the mobile device. In such implementations, the routing instructions 374 can provide intelligent routing based on disfavored routes/locations, traffic, user preferences, and/or history.” ([0048])
Rationale:
Forstall expressly discloses computer program products and routing instructions stored in memory for providing intelligent navigation guidance based on disfavored routes/locations, traffic, user preferences, and history. Forstall therefore discloses a computer program product for route guidance. To the extent “for a vehicle” requires vehicle-specific implementation, that aspect is supplied by Alten’s vehicle navigation system as addressed below. To the extent “augmented” or enhanced guidance is required, that aspect is supplied by Katzer as addressed below.
See at least:
“The memory 350 can include high-speed random access memory and/or non-volatile memory, such as one or more magnetic disk storage devices, one or more optical storage devices, and/or flash memory (e.g., NAND, NOR).” ([0046])
See also:
“In some implementations, the routing instructions, when executed, can implement a destination engine 410, a routing engine 420, an analysis engine 430 and a presentation engine 440.” ([0051])
Rationale:
Forstall discloses non-volatile memory, including magnetic disk, optical storage, and flash memory, storing GPS/navigation and routing instructions. Forstall further discloses that the routing instructions, when executed, implement destination, routing, analysis, and presentation engines. A PHOSITA would have understood the non-volatile memory to be a non-transitory computer-readable medium and the routing instructions to cause a processor to execute route-guidance operations. Thus, Forstall discloses or renders obvious the computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and including instructions to cause a processor to execute steps comprising:
identifying a set of historical routes previously traveled by vehicles that each have a same origin location and a same destination location;
See at least:
“In other implementations, the preferences engine 376 can analyze historical route information to identify routes or locations avoided by the user.” ([0075])
See also:
“By way of example, if a route from a first location to a second location has been traveled a hundred times, and included a third location only 4 times, an inference can be made that the user disfavors the third location.” ([0077])
Rationale:
Forstall discloses analyzing historical route information and gives an example of a route from a first location to a second location traveled one hundred times. The repeated route from the first location to the second location renders obvious identifying a set of historical routes having the same origin and destination. To the extent the limitation requires the routes to have been “previously traveled by vehicles,” Alten supplies that vehicle-specific historical travel-data aspect below.
generating a route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location;
See at least:
“At stage 620, routes associated with the destination are identified. The routes can be identified, for example, using a routing engine... In some implementations, the routing engine can receive position information from a positioning system... The positioning information can be used as a starting point for the routing engine. In some implementations, the routing engine can use a navigation service... to derive one or more routes.” ([0084])
Rationale:
Forstall discloses using a routing engine to identify routes associated with a destination, using position information as a starting point, and deriving one or more routes. This teaches or renders obvious generating a route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Forstall
Forstall does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
determining a cost associated with a lowest cost route in the set of historical routes traveled by vehicles;
determining a subset of inexpensive routes, in the set of historical routes traveled by vehicles, that each have a cost exceeding the cost associated with the lowest cost route by less than a threshold amount;
comparing each route not in the subset of inexpensive routes to each route in the subset of inexpensive routes to identify at least one route segment that is not in any routes in the subset of inexpensive routes;
labeling a point at which the identified at least one route segment begins as an expensive divergence point;
receiving a service request including a requested origin location and a requested destination location;
identifying the expensive divergence point in the route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location;
based on identifying the expensive divergence point in the route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location, generating navigation guidance including augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point; and
providing the navigation guidance with the augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point to a computing device in response to the service request.
Disclosure by Alten
Alten discloses or renders obvious:
determining a cost associated with a lowest cost route in the set of historical routes traveled by vehicles;
See at least:
“System 100 can include one or more of vehicle computing system 102, navigation system 104 and mobile device 106. In some implementations, vehicle computing system 102 can be coupled to navigation system 104 and provides navigation system 104 with information related to the operation of the vehicle...” ([0014])
See also:
“At least one custom travel factor (e.g., a time adjustment) can be determined based on the personal travel data (204). Using the custom travel factor, travel time can be estimated for at least a second route (206).” ([0017])
See also:
“Each time a user travels a route, the actual time to travel the route can be computed and added to a rolling travel time average which can be stored in a local or remote database.” ([0022])
Rationale:
Alten discloses a vehicle-based navigation system and teaches determining custom travel factors, such as time adjustments, from personal travel data. Alten also teaches computing actual travel time each time a user travels a route and adding that actual time to a rolling travel-time average. Travel time is a route cost because it is a measurable value used to compare and optimize routes. In view of Forstall’s route-comparison framework, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to determine the cost associated with the route having the lowest travel-time cost in the historical route set.
determining a subset of inexpensive routes, in the set of historical routes traveled by vehicles, that each have a cost exceeding the cost associated with the lowest cost route by less than a threshold amount;
See at least:
“The personal travel data can be used to classify routes so that custom travel factors for a route in a given class can be used to estimate travel times for other routes in the same class.” ([0005])
See also:
“In some implementations, it may be possible to classify routes based on route features which can include custom travel factors.” ([0038])
See also:
“Each new route can be processed by the classifier and labeled appropriately. In some implementations, each route can be given a similarity score that can be used to determine routes that are similar (based on similarity criteria) to the requested route.” ([0038])
Rationale:
Alten discloses classifying routes based on route features including custom travel factors, labeling routes, and using similarity scores or criteria. In view of Alten’s travel-time cost factors and Forstall’s route-comparison framework, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to classify historical routes whose costs are within a threshold amount of the lowest-cost route into a subset of inexpensive routes. Using a threshold amount is a predictable numerical classification technique for identifying routes sufficiently close in cost to the lowest-cost route.
comparing each route not in the subset of inexpensive routes to each route in the subset of inexpensive routes to identify at least one route segment that is not in any routes in the subset of inexpensive routes;
See at least:
“In some implementations, a route can be divided into route segments and each segment can be associated with one or more custom travel factors.” ([0019])
See also:
“In some implementations, the average speeds for a route can provide a route signature that can be compared against other route signatures.” ([0039])
See also:
“For example, an n-dimensional vector having average speeds as vector components can be compared with other n-dimensional vectors in an n-dimensional vector space to identify similar routes.” ([0039])
Rationale:
Alten discloses dividing routes into route segments, associating each segment with custom travel factors, and comparing route signatures to identify similar routes. Once the inexpensive-route subset is identified using route-cost thresholding, it would have been obvious to compare routes not in that subset to routes in that subset to identify distinguishing route-segment features, including at least one route segment that appears in the higher-cost route but not in the inexpensive routes.
labeling a point at which the identified at least one route segment begins as an expensive divergence point;
See at least:
“In some implementations, a route can be divided into route segments and each segment can be associated with one or more custom travel factors.” ([0019])
See also:
“Each new route can be processed by the classifier and labeled appropriately.” ([0038])
Rationale:
Alten discloses dividing a route into segments and labeling routes using a classifier. A PHOSITA would have understood that an identified route segment has a beginning point and that the beginning of a route segment not present in the inexpensive-route subset marks where the route diverges into a more costly route portion. In view of Forstall’s disfavored route-progression analysis, labeling that beginning point as an “expensive divergence point” would have been an obvious data-labeling implementation for identifying the start of a higher-cost divergence segment.
Motivation to Combine Forstall and Alten
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall and Alten before them, to modify Forstall’s computer-program-product-based route-guidance system to use Alten’s vehicle-based historical travel-time, custom-travel-factor, route-segment, route-comparison, and route-classification teachings. Forstall discloses routing instructions stored in memory that provide intelligent routing based on disfavored routes/locations, traffic, user preferences, and history. Alten discloses a technically compatible vehicle navigation system that determines travel-time-based route costs, divides routes into route segments, compares route signatures, and classifies routes based on custom travel factors. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve route-selection accuracy and route-guidance reliability by objectively identifying route segments that make a route more costly than lower-cost historical alternatives. The modification would have been the predictable use of known route-cost and route-classification techniques in a known navigation software system.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Forstall and Alten
After combining the teachings of Forstall and Alten, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
receiving a service request including a requested origin location and a requested destination location;
identifying the expensive divergence point in the route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location;
based on identifying the expensive divergence point in the route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location, generating navigation guidance including augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point; and
providing the navigation guidance with the augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point to a computing device in response to the service request.
Disclosure by McGavran
McGavran discloses or renders obvious:
receiving a service request including a requested origin location and a requested destination location;
See at least:
“The first stage 405 shows the device 400 that displays a map after launching the integrated application. The map may display the current location of the device 400. The first stage 405 also shows that the integrated application displays a direction control 460.” ([0103])
See also:
“The direction control 460 opens a direction entry page 455 through which a user can request a route to be identified between a starting location and an ending location.” ([0104])
See also:
“The fourth stage 420 shows that the direction entry page 455 includes starting and ending fields for providing starting and ending locations for a route...” ([0106])
Rationale:
McGavran discloses a direction entry page through which a user requests a route to be identified between a starting location and an ending location, including starting and ending fields. The route request is the claimed service request, the starting location is the requested origin location, and the ending location is the requested destination location.
identifying the expensive divergence point in the route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location;
See at least:
“In response to the selection of the route generation control 421, the integrated application of some embodiments sends the starting and ending locations information to a remote server to obtain the routes. The remote server computes walking routes and/or driving routes and returns the computed routes back to the integration application.” ([0107])
See also:
“At the fifth stage 425, the integrated application shows a map with the three routes 476, 478 and 480 from the starting location to the ending location...” ([0108])
See also:
“The notification manager 4175 receives the current position information from the current position tracker and the location information for the upcoming turn from the route manager 4110 to determine which notification to provide to the user.” ([0374])
Rationale:
McGavran discloses obtaining routes from the starting location to the ending location and managing location information for upcoming route events. In the Forstall-Alten combination, the expensive divergence point has already been labeled as the point where the route enters a higher-cost route segment. It would have been obvious to identify that labeled point within McGavran’s route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location so that the system can provide guidance at the relevant route location.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, and McGavran
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, and McGavran before them, to modify the Forstall-Alten computer-program-product route-guidance system to use McGavran’s route-request and generated-route framework. Forstall and Alten collectively disclose navigation/routing instructions for historical route analysis, route-cost evaluation, route-segment comparison, and labeling a higher-cost divergence point. McGavran discloses a compatible navigation application in which a user requests a route by providing starting and ending locations, and the system obtains routes from the starting location to the ending location. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide a practical service-request interface and to locate the labeled expensive divergence point in the generated route. The modification would improve usability, route-guidance accuracy, and system responsiveness and would have been the predictable use of known route-request and route-location-management techniques in a known navigation software system.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Forstall, Alten, and McGavran
After combining the teachings of Forstall, Alten, and McGavran, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
based on identifying the expensive divergence point in the route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location, generating navigation guidance including augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point; and
providing the navigation guidance with the augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point to a computing device in response to the service request.
Disclosure by Katzer
Katzer discloses or renders obvious:
based on identifying the expensive divergence point in the route from the requested origin location to the requested destination location, generating navigation guidance including augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point; and
See at least:
“The perspective view can encompass graphic curves or substantially continuous arrows to highlight the prescribed route.” ([0019])
See also:
“Geographic position information can then be allocated to the perspective view, and the perspective view can be referenced to a digital roadmap at the location of the geographic position information. In this way, the previously generated perspective view can be linked to a specific geographic position, so that, as the corresponding geographic position is approached, the accompanying perspective view can be called up.” ([0030])
See also:
“During the navigation process, the navigation device can check whether a complex intersection is coming up, or whether a corresponding perspective view is allocated to an upcoming navigation maneuver or its geographic position. If so, the perspective view can be output on the display of the navigation device.” ([0031])
Rationale:
Katzer discloses enhanced visual navigation guidance in the form of graphic curves, continuous arrows, and a perspective view linked to a specific geographic position. Katzer further discloses calling up and outputting that perspective view as the corresponding position is approached. In the combined system, the expensive divergence point is the specific geographic position in the requested route at which the higher-cost route segment begins. Thus, Katzer renders obvious generating navigation guidance including augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point based on identifying that point in the route.
providing the navigation guidance with the augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point to a computing device in response to the service request.
See at least:
“During the navigation process, the navigation device can check whether a complex intersection is coming up, or whether a corresponding perspective view is allocated to an upcoming navigation maneuver or its geographic position. If so, the perspective view can be output on the display of the navigation device.” ([0031])
See also:
“The navigation application of some embodiments is part of an integrated mapping application... Examples of such devices are smartphones... tablet computers...” ([0059])
Rationale:
Katzer discloses outputting the enhanced perspective view on the display of the navigation device during navigation. McGavran discloses that the navigation application operates on smartphones and tablet computers, and that routes are obtained in response to a user route request. In the combined system, the navigation guidance is provided with the augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point to a computing device in response to the service request.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer before them, to modify the Forstall-Alten-McGavran computer-program-product route-guidance system to generate and provide Katzer’s geographically linked enhanced perspective navigation instructions when the expensive divergence point is identified in the generated route. Forstall discloses routing instructions stored on memory for intelligent route guidance. Alten discloses vehicle-based historical route-cost and route-segment analysis for identifying higher-cost route segments and labeling the beginning of such a segment. McGavran discloses receiving a route request with starting and ending locations and generating a route in response. Katzer discloses enhanced perspective guidance linked to a specific geographic position and output as that position is approached. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these complementary teachings to improve driver awareness, route-following accuracy, and navigation reliability at a route location identified as a costly divergence point. The modification would have been the predictable use of known geographically triggered enhanced navigation guidance in a known processor-executed navigation software system and would not change the principle of operation of any reference.
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer establishes the computer program product of claim 15, which is the basis for Claim 16.
Disclosure by Forstall
Forstall teaches:
and the at least one route segment is identified based on the time of service.
See at least:
“In some implementations, the route information can include historical data. For example, historical data can include information about the average time associated with navigating a route progression. The average time associated with each of the route progressions that are included in a route can combined to provide an estimated total time to navigate the route. The route may then be compared to similarly analyzed routes based on estimated total time to navigate the other routes, which can be used to recommend a route to a user.” ([0068])
See also:
“In some implementations, the average time to navigate a route progression can be dependent upon the time of day the route progression is being navigated. For example, a section of highway in a large city may be slow at 8:00 am due to rush hour, while the same section of highway might be clear at 10:00 pm. Thus, the historical data can include a time of day for which the average is to be computed. For example, the analysis engine 430 can average the five navigations taken at the closest times of day to a current time.” ([0069])
See also:
“In some implementations, disfavored route progressions and/or locations can be disfavored dependent on a time of day.” ([0087])
Rationale:
Forstall teaches that route progressions are analyzed using historical data, that average time associated with navigating route progressions may be combined to determine estimated total route time, and that routes may be compared based on estimated total time. Forstall further teaches that the average time to navigate a route progression can depend on the time of day and that the analysis engine may average navigations taken at the closest times of day to a current time. In the Claim 1 combination, the claimed “at least one route segment” corresponds to a route portion or route progression identified through route comparison and route-analysis logic. Thus, Forstall teaches or renders obvious identifying the relevant route segment based on time-dependent route-progression information, which accounts for at least one route segment is identified based on the time of service.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Forstall
Forstall does not explicitly teach the following claim limitation:
wherein the service request includes a time of service
Disclosure by Alten
Alten teaches:
wherein the service request includes a time of service
See at least:
“FIG. 2B is a flow diagram of example process 208 for estimating travel time. In some implementations, process 208 can begin by obtaining a route request (210). The route request can be specified by user input. For example, a user can submit a route request by entering a destination address into a navigation system. The navigation system determines a route and estimated travel time based on the request (212).” ([0018])
See also:
“This custom travel factor can capture the driving habits or patterns of the user and other factors effecting time such as road conditions and traffic congestion. The factor can be time stamped or otherwise indexed for easy retrieval from a local and/or remote database. A given factor may only be valid for certain times of the year, certain days of the week and certain times of the day...” ([0026])
See also:
“If the user requests the Winter Work Route from their navigation system, then the navigation system can use the current season, month, day and time to generate a query for retrieving the custom travel factor of +20 minutes.” ([0037])
Rationale:
Alten teaches obtaining a route request specified by user input and determining a route and estimated travel time based on that request. Alten further teaches that custom travel factors are time stamped or otherwise indexed and may be valid only for certain times of year, days of week, and times of day. Alten also teaches that, when the user requests a route, the navigation system uses the current season, month, day, and time to retrieve a custom travel factor. Thus, although Alten does not use the exact phrase “time of service,” it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA for the route request to include, carry, or be associated with the time at which the route service is requested so that the system can retrieve and apply the appropriate time-indexed travel factor.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer before them, to modify the route-guidance method established by the combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer such that the service request includes a time of service and the at least one route segment is identified based on the time of service. Forstall teaches that route progressions and disfavored route progressions may be analyzed based on time of day, including using historical data closest in time to a current time. Alten teaches obtaining a route request and applying time-stamped or time-indexed custom travel factors that may be valid only for particular times of year, days of week, and times of day. McGavran teaches a navigation application that obtains route information based on starting and destination locations and provides navigation instructions for the selected route. Katzer teaches associating enhanced navigation guidance with specific geographic positions along a route and outputting the guidance when the position is approached. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to use the time of service in the combined system so that the identified route segment and associated guidance reflect time-dependent travel conditions, traffic patterns, and historical travel behavior. The modification would have been the predictable use of known time-indexed route-cost data in a known adaptive route-guidance system, would improve accuracy and performance of route guidance, and would not change the principle of operation of the Claim combination.
Regarding Claim 17,
The combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer establishes the computer program product of claim 15, which is the basis for Claim 17.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Forstall and Alten
After combining the teachings of Forstall and Alten, the following claim limitation remains not explicitly disclosed:
wherein the at least one route segment is identified based on weather conditions.
Disclosure by McGavran
McGavran discloses or renders obvious:
wherein the at least one route segment is identified based on weather conditions.
See at least:
“The environmental data analyzer 4150 receives data about the environment in which the device is located, from the sensors of the device or of the external sources. The environmental data analyzer 4150 may also receive the environmental data from a remote server (e.g., a weather server) supplying the data.” ([0368])
See also:
“A map service 4430 in some embodiments provides map information and other map-related data, such as two-dimensional map image data... route and direction calculations... real-time navigation data... location data... and other geographic data (e.g., wireless network coverage, weather, traffic information, or nearby points-of-interest).” ([0399])
Rationale:
McGavran expressly discloses receiving environmental data from a weather server and receiving map-related data including weather and traffic information. In the Claim 15 combination, the at least one route segment is the segment identified through the Forstall-Alten route-progression and route-cost analysis. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to use McGavran’s weather information as an input to that route-segment identification because weather conditions predictably affect road conditions, traffic congestion, vehicle speed, travel time, and route-segment cost. Thus, McGavran renders obvious wherein the at least one route segment is identified based on weather conditions.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer before them, to modify the computer-program-product route-guidance system established by the combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer such that the at least one route segment is identified based on weather conditions. Forstall and Alten establish the Claim 15 route-progression, historical-route, cost, and route-segment identification framework. McGavran teaches receiving weather information from a weather server and receiving map-related data including weather and traffic information. Katzer remains part of the Claim 15 combination because it supplies geographically linked augmented navigation guidance associated with the identified point. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to use weather conditions in the combined system because weather predictably affects road conditions, traffic patterns, vehicle speed, and travel time on particular route segments, thereby improving route-cost accuracy and navigation reliability. The modification would have been the predictable use of known weather data in a known route-segment and augmented-guidance navigation system and would not change the principle of operation of the Claim 15 combination.
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer establishes The computer program product of claim 15, which is the basis for Claim 18.
Disclosure by Forstall
Forstall discloses or renders obvious:
• wherein the threshold amount is a percentage.
See at least:
“Such an inference can be based upon the ratio of the number of times the route has been traveled and not included the route progression.” ([0076])
See also:
“By way of example, if a route from a first location to a second location has been traveled a hundred times, and included a third location only 4 times, an inference can be made that the user disfavors the third location. However, if for example, the route from the first location to the second location had only been traveled ten times, and included the third location four times, the third location is likely not disfavored. In some implementations a weighting associated with the disfavor of a route progression or location 500 can be set based upon the ratio between usage of a routes progressions/locations during a route and the total number of times the route has been traversed...” ([0077])
See also:
“In those implementations including a strength associated with a user preference, the analysis engine... can use the strength to weight the route progressions and use the weighted route progressions to compare routes. For example, the user's desire to avoid traffic can be rated on a scale from 1 to 10...” ([0080])
Rationale:
Forstall discloses evaluating route progressions using ratios and numerical weights, including a ratio between usage of route progressions/locations during a route and the total number of times the route has been traversed. A ratio is mathematically convertible to a percentage by multiplying by 100, and a PHOSITA would have understood percentage expression to be a conventional and predictable way to represent relative route-use, route-disfavor, route-comparison, or threshold criteria. In the Claim 15 combination, the “threshold amount” is used to determine whether route costs are sufficiently close to the lowest-cost route. Expressing that threshold amount as a percentage would have been an obvious design choice because Forstall already teaches relative route-progression evaluation using ratios and scaled numerical weighting. Thus, Forstall renders obvious wherein the threshold amount is a percentage.
Motivation to Combine Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer before them, to implement the computer-program-product route-guidance system established by the combination of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer such that the threshold amount is a percentage. Forstall teaches ratio-based and scaled numerical evaluation of route progressions and user disfavor. Alten, as applied in Claim 15, teaches route costs and custom travel factors used to compare route costs. McGavran and Katzer remain part of the Claim 15 combination because they establish the route-request, computing-device, augmented-instruction, and geographically associated guidance aspects of the parent computer-program-product claim. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to express the threshold amount as a percentage because percentage thresholds are a predictable, normalized way to compare route costs across different route lengths, travel times, and cost magnitudes. This would improve consistency and scalability of the route-comparison process without changing the principle of operation of the combination.
Response to Arguments
WITHDRAWAL OF CLAIM OBJECTION (Claim 8)
The claim objection to Claim 8, previously entered for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter, is hereby WITHDRAWN.
Applicant has amended Claim 8 to overcome the noted deficiency. Specifically, the amendment provides clear antecedent basis and recites the claimed subject matter with sufficient particularity to distinguish the metes and bounds of the claim. No new issues of indefiniteness are introduced by the amendment. Accordingly, the objection is withdrawn.
WITHDRAWAL OF REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Claims 1, 8, and 15)
The rejections of Claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite are hereby WITHDRAWN.
Applicant has amended each of these claims to cure the antecedent-basis and referent-clarity defects identified in the Non-Final Office Action dated December 5, 2025. The claim language now points out and distinctly defines the subject matter that applicant regards as the invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand the scope of the amended claims without undue speculation. Therefore, the § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101 - MAINTAINED
Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and that the amended claims include “further technical details.” However, Applicant has not identified any specific claim limitation that improves the operation of a computer, improves the operation of a routing engine, improves GPS or map-matching technology, improves a vehicle control system, or provides a specific technological solution beyond the abstract process of analyzing route-cost information and presenting emphasized guidance.
Applicant is advised to refer to 101 Rejection section of this Office Action for for detailed Analysis. Accordingly, Applicant’s conclusory assertion that the claims are not abstract and include technical details does not overcome the rejection. The claims, as amended, remain directed to the abstract idea of analyzing route-cost information, identifying a costly route-divergence point, and presenting augmented guidance based on that analysis, without reciting additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is MAINTAINED.
35 U.S.C. § 101 - MAINTAINED
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
As an initial matter, Applicant’s arguments largely argue individual references in isolation, and particularly attack the prior reliance on Forstall alone for several limitations. The present rejection, however, is maintained based on the combined teachings of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer, as set forth in the updated claim mapping. It is well settled that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive because the rejection does not rely on Forstall alone to disclose every feature of the amended independent claims. Forstall is relied upon as the primary reference for the route-guidance framework, historical route-progression analysis, preference/disfavor analysis, routing engine, analysis engine, and presentation engine. Alten is relied upon for vehicle-based historical route data, route-cost determination, custom travel factors, route-segment cost analysis, route classification, route-signature comparison, and labeling/classifying route features. McGavran is relied upon for receiving a route request including starting and ending locations, generating routes in response to that request, and providing navigation guidance to a mobile computing device. Katzer is relied upon for augmented route guidance associated with a specific geographic position, including enhanced perspective views, graphic route-highlighting, and outputting such guidance when the corresponding route position is approached.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection.
Response to Argument (a): “identifying a set of historical routes previously traveled by vehicles that each have a same origin location and a same destination location”
Applicant argues that Forstall paragraph [0065] does not disclose identifying “historical routes previously traveled by vehicles” that each have “a same origin location and a same destination location.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the rejection is not maintained based solely on Forstall paragraph [0065].
Forstall teaches analyzing historical route information to identify routes or locations avoided by the user. Forstall further teaches that “if a route from a first location to a second location has been traveled a hundred times,” and included a third location only four times, an inference can be made that the user disfavors the third location. Thus, Forstall teaches historical route analysis involving repeated travel between the same first location and second location. The “first location” corresponds to the claimed same origin location, and the “second location” corresponds to the claimed same destination location.
To the extent Applicant contends that Forstall does not expressly disclose that the historical routes were “previously traveled by vehicles,” Alten remedies that alleged deficiency. Alten teaches a vehicle computing system coupled to a navigation system and teaches collecting route data while a user travels a route. Alten further teaches that, if a route is traveled repeatedly, rolling averages of travel speeds and travel times for route segments may be computed and stored. Thus, the combined teachings of Forstall and Alten render obvious identifying historical routes previously traveled by vehicles that share the same origin and destination.
Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive because it attacks Forstall alone and does not address the combined teachings of Forstall and Alten.
Response to Argument (b): “determining a cost associated with a lowest cost route” and “determining a subset of inexpensive routes”
Applicant argues that none of the cited references discloses “determining a cost associated with a lowest cost route in the set of historical routes traveled by vehicles” or “determining a subset of inexpensive routes” whose costs exceed the lowest route cost by less than a threshold amount. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Alten teaches determining custom travel factors, including time adjustments, based on personal travel data. Alten also teaches estimating travel time for routes, computing actual travel time, comparing estimated and actual travel times, and storing rolling travel-time averages. Travel time is a route cost because it is a measurable quantity used in navigation systems to evaluate and compare routes. Therefore, Alten teaches or renders obvious determining route costs for historical routes.
Alten further teaches classifying routes based on route features, including custom travel factors, and assigning labels, categories, similarity scores, and similarity criteria to routes. In view of these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to classify historical routes whose costs are sufficiently close to the lowest-cost route into a subset of inexpensive routes. Using a threshold amount to determine whether a route cost exceeds the lowest route cost by less than an acceptable amount is a predictable numerical classification technique for route-cost analysis.
Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive because the amended “lowest cost route,” “cost,” “subset of inexpensive routes,” and “threshold amount” limitations are not being read from Forstall alone. They are supplied or rendered obvious by Alten’s route-cost, custom-travel-factor, route-classification, and route-comparison teachings in combination with Forstall’s adaptive route-guidance framework.
Response to Argument (c): “comparing each route not in the subset of inexpensive routes to each route in the subset of inexpensive routes”
Applicant argues that Forstall does not disclose comparing each route not in a subset of inexpensive routes to each route in the subset of inexpensive routes. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the present rejection does not rely on Forstall alone for that limitation.
Alten teaches that a route may be divided into route segments and that each segment may be associated with one or more custom travel factors. Alten further teaches that average speeds for a route may provide a route signature that can be compared against other route signatures. Alten additionally teaches comparing n-dimensional vectors representing route characteristics to identify similar routes, and teaches route features including number of segments, average speeds for segments, speed limits for segments, and route type.
In view of Alten’s route-signature comparison and route-feature classification, it would have been obvious to compare routes not in the inexpensive route subset against routes in the inexpensive route subset to identify distinguishing route-segment features. Once the inexpensive subset is determined based on cost thresholding, identifying a route segment present in a higher-cost route but absent from the inexpensive routes is a predictable use of Alten’s route-segment comparison and classification process.
Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive because it again attacks Forstall alone rather than the Forstall-Alten combination.
Response to Argument (d): “labeling a point at which the identified at least one route segment begins as an expensive divergence point”
Applicant argues that Forstall does not disclose labeling a point, does not disclose where a route segment begins, and does not disclose labeling such a point as an “expensive divergence point.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Alten teaches that routes may be divided into route segments and that each segment may be associated with custom travel factors. A route segment necessarily has a beginning point and an ending point. Alten further teaches that a classifier can be applied to route features to generate labels or categories and that each new route can be processed and labeled appropriately.
In the combined system, the route segment not found in the inexpensive-route subset is the route portion that causes divergence from lower-cost historical routes. The beginning of that route segment is the point where the higher-cost route diverges from the inexpensive route alternatives. Labeling that point as an “expensive divergence point” would have been an obvious data-labeling implementation because Alten already teaches labeling route features and classifying routes, while Forstall teaches route-progression/disfavored-location analysis.
The particular phrase “expensive divergence point” is not required to appear verbatim in the prior art. Under U.S.C. 35 103, the question is whether the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious. Here, Alten’s route-segment classification and labeling teachings, combined with Forstall’s route-progression analysis, render the limitation obvious.
Response to Argument (e): “based on identifying the expensive divergence point ... generating navigation guidance including augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point”
Applicant argues that Forstall paragraph [0086] merely discloses presenting a route and does not disclose generating navigation guidance based on identifying an expensive divergence point or generating augmented instructions associated with that point. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because this limitation is not maintained based on Forstall alone.
McGavran teaches receiving a route request between a starting location and an ending location, generating routes in response to that request, and providing navigation guidance in a mobile navigation application. McGavran also teaches determining location information for upcoming route events and providing notifications to the user.
Katzer further teaches enhanced navigation guidance linked to a specific geographic position. Katzer discloses allocating geographic position information to a perspective view, referencing that view to a digital roadmap at the corresponding geographic position, and calling up the accompanying perspective view as the corresponding geographic position is approached. Katzer also teaches that the perspective view may include graphic curves or continuous arrows to highlight the prescribed route, and that the view may be output when the navigation device determines that a corresponding maneuver or geographic position is upcoming.
In the combined system, the “expensive divergence point” identified by Forstall and Alten is the specific geographic position where the higher-cost route segment begins. Katzer teaches generating and outputting enhanced navigation guidance associated with such a specific geographic position. Thus, the combined teachings render obvious generating navigation guidance including augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point based on identifying that point in the route.
Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive because the amended “augmented instructions associated with the expensive divergence point” limitation is supplied by Katzer in combination with Forstall, Alten, and McGavran, not by Forstall alone.
Response to Argument (f): Separately Rejected Dependent Claims 7 and 14
Applicant argues that Katzer does not remedy the alleged deficiencies of Forstall, Alten, and McGavran and that dependent claims 7 and 14 contain additional patentable subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
As discussed above, the alleged deficiencies in the independent claims are remedied by the combined teachings of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer. Katzer is not relied upon merely as an isolated add-on for dependent claims 7 and 14. Rather, Katzer teaches enhanced navigation guidance associated with specific geographic positions and is also relevant to the augmented-instruction limitations of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 7 and 14 specifically, Katzer teaches highway intersections and a maneuver requiring a navigation instruction “to exit the A66” toward the A5. A highway exit is a conventional route-divergence location at which a vehicle leaves one controlled-access route segment and begins another route segment. Thus, in the combined system, it would have been obvious for the expensive divergence point to be an exit from a controlled-access highway because highway exits are common route decision points where missed or incorrect maneuvers can increase travel time, route cost, and user burden.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument does not overcome the rejection of claims 7 and 14.
103 Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The independent claims are rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Forstall, Alten, McGavran, and Katzer. Forstall provides the adaptive route-guidance and historical route-progression framework; Alten provides vehicle-based historical route-cost, route-segment, route-classification, and labeling teachings; McGavran provides the service-request, requested-origin/requested-destination, generated-route, and computing-device navigation framework; and Katzer provides augmented navigation guidance associated with a specific geographic route position.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 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 OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 5PM).
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights