DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the preliminary amendment filed 28 October 2024
Claims 11-28 have been added.
Claims 1-10 have been canceled.
Claims 11-28 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 October 2024 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The formula shown on Page 9 of the application appears to include a typographical error. The examiner notes that the equation does not identify the right hand side of the equality.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
At least claims 21-23 contain contingent limitations such as :
Claim 21 “transmitting a time-controlled request for provision of the further predicted route and the further quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server if a last request exceeds a specified period of time.
Claim 22 “suppressing the time-controlled request to provide the further predicted route and the further quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server if a distance of the vehicle from a next decision point of the predicted route falls below a predetermined distance threshold.”
Claim 23 “suppressing the time-controlled request to provide the further predicted route and the further quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server if a time span to reach a next decision point falls below a predetermined time threshold.”
The examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. (See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016 and MPEP 2111.04).
Thus, the examiner notes in the above phrases, that the underlined portions are not positively recited and thus, are not required to be performed. The examiner recommends replacing “if” with “when” to positively recite the element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-13, 15, and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a decision point". Claim 2 depends from claim 11 which recites “a decision point” in line 5. It is not clear if the decision point of claim 12 is the same decision point as that recited in claim 11.
Claim 15 recites “each decision point”. As noted above, claim 12 recites a decision point and claim 11 recites “a decision point” as well as “a quantity of decision points” and “a further quantity of decision points’. It is not clear if each decision point of claim 13 is referring to the decision point(s) that is traversed in claim 12, or each of the decision points of the plurality of decisions points or the decision points of the further quantity of decision points. The examiner believes that claim 15 should be amended to recite “ an importance is associated with each decision point of the quantity of decision points”. Claim 20 has a similar recitation and should be amended similarly.
Claim 15 recites “an importance” in line 2 and in line 3. It is not clear if the second recitation in line 3 is the same importance as that is recited in line 2. The examiner recommends amending line 3 to recite “the importance”.
Claim 21 recites “ transmitting a time-controlled request for provision of the further predicted route”. Claim 21 depends from claim 11 which recites “submitting a request to provide a further predicted route….”. It is not clear if the time-controlled request further defining the request of claim 11 or if it is a separate request than the request of claim 11.
Claims 22 and 23 recite “suppressing the time-controlled request….”. Claims 22 and 23 depend from claim 21 which recites “transmitting a time-controlled request”. It appears that claims 22 and 23 contradict claim 21 as it is impossible to “transmit a time-controlled request” and to “suppress the time-controlled request”.
Claim 26 recites “a backend server” and “a vehicle”. Claim 26 depends from claim 11 which has previously recited “a backend server” and “a vehicle”. It is not clear if the backend server and the vehicle are the same as that recited in claim 11. Claim 27 and 28 have similar limitations and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on its dependency on claim 12.
Claim 22-25 depend from claim 21 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 12.
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 11-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Following the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2019 Guidance), the claim(s) appear to recite at least one abstract idea, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 1:
Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of matter.
Claim 11 is directed toward a method and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
Claim 26 is directed toward non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions when executed by a computer or a control unit, carry out the method and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
Claim 27 is directed toward a system and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
Claim 28 is directed toward a vehicle containing the system and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong I, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 11 recites:
A method for requesting predicted routes from a backend server by means of a vehicle, the method including:
receiving a predicted route and a quantity of decision points for the predicted route from the backend server by the vehicle;
determining a traversal of a decision point from the quantity of decision points by the vehicle;
submitting a request to provide a further predicted route and a further quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server after the vehicle has traversed the decision point;
and receiving the further predicted route and the further quantity of decision points from the backend server by the vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “determining a traversal of a decision point from the quantity of decision points…” and “submitting a request to provide a further predicted route and a further quantity of decision points …after the vehicle has traversed the decision point” steps encompass a human viewing a navigation display of a route, an alternative route, and their current position on a map and determining that they have passed a landmark on the route and selecting a further request to the user interface of the navigational display.
STEP 2A, PRONG II:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 11 recites:
A method for requesting predicted routes from a backend server by means of a vehicle, the method including:
receiving a predicted route and a quantity of decision points for the predicted route from the backend server by the vehicle;
determining a traversal of a decision point from the quantity of decision points by the vehicle;
submitting a request to provide a further predicted route and a further quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server after the vehicle has traversed the decision point;
and receiving the further predicted route and the further quantity of decision points from the backend server by the vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application:
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving a predicted route and a quantity of decision points for the predicted route from the backend server by the vehicle;” “and receiving the further predicted route and the further quantity of decision points from the backend server by the vehicle.”, “by the vehicle” and “from the vehicle to the backend server” the examiner submits that these limitations merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
Specifically, the courts have held that merely reciting the works “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitations of “by the vehicle” and “from the vehicle to the backend server” are recited at a high level of generality and simply describes using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of “determining” and “submitting”. These additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose computer (see page 5 of the instant application).
Further, the limitations of “receiving a predicted route and a quantity of decision points for the predicted route from the backend server by the vehicle;” and “and receiving the further predicted route and the further quantity of decision points from the backend server by the vehicle.” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data gathering or data output) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See at least MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, these additional elements merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding the additional limitations of “by the vehicle ” “from the vehicle to the backend server” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. . See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, the representative independent claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “by the vehicle” and “from the vehicle to the backend server” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or generic components (see page 5 of the instant application). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer or generic components that are simply employed as a tool cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving a predicted route and a quantity of decision points for the predicted route from the backend server by the vehicle;” and “and receiving the further predicted route and the further quantity of decision points from the backend server by the vehicle.” the examiner submits are insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 26-28 recite a ”non-transitory computer-readable medium for requesting predicted routes from a backend server by means of a vehicle, wherein the computer-readable medium contains instructions which, when executed by a computer or a control unit, carry out the method as claimed in claim 11.”, a “system for requesting predicted routes from a backend server by means of a vehicle, wherein the system is designed to carry out the method as claimed in claim 11” and a “vehicle containing the system for requesting predicted routes from the backend server as claimed in claim 27”.
The courts have held that merely reciting the works “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitations of “non-transitory computer-readable medium” “a backend server” a computer or a control unit” are recited at a high level of generality and simply describes using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of “determining” and “submitting”. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose computer (see page 5 of the instant application).
Regarding the additional limitations of “by means of a vehicle ” and “a vehicle” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. . See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim(s) 12-28 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, generally linking to a technological environment, and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations are considered mental process steps and additional steps that amount to necessary data output (e.g. provide predicted or further predicted route (e.g. claim 16,18, 24), activating a navigation interpreted as merely displaying navigation (e.g. claim 17, 25). These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 12-28 are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 11-28 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-18 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Konig et al. (US-20170314944-A1, hereinafter “Konig”).
Regarding claim 11, Konig teaches a method for requesting predicted routes from a backend server by means of a vehicle (see at least Konig [0073-0085]), the method including:
receiving a predicted route(see at least Konig, the main route as described in [0079] “Data indicative of the main route, and optionally an alternative route between the origin and destination of the second origin-destination pair, or a decision point and the destination of the second origin-destination pair, is preferably output to a user via a mobile device. The mobile device may be associated with a vehicle in which the user is travelling, and is preferably a navigation device. The navigation device may be an integrated navigation device or a portable navigation device (PND), e.g. handheld device, associated with the vehicle. The device is preferably the same device which performs some or all of the steps of generating routes through the network in accordance with the invention. However it is envisaged that some or all of the route generation steps may be carried out by a remote device, e.g. a server, and transmitted to the device for output to a user.”) and a quantity of decision points for the predicted route from the backend server by the vehicle (see at least Konig significant decision points as described in [0084] “While the invention has been described in relation to performing the steps of determining alternative routes in respect of a next decision point of the sub-network along a main route, it will be appreciated that the method need not be carried out in relation to each decision point of the sub-network along the route. For example, the method may be carried out in relation to only significant decision points, at which it is desired to provide users with alternative options. Thus the first decision point may not necessarily be the next decision point to be encountered, but instead be an upcoming decision point, and, in embodiments in which the method is repeated in respect of a further decision point after passing through the first decision point, the method may comprise performing the steps of the method in relation to a subsequent decision point, which may not necessarily be the next decision point along the main route.”) ;
determining a traversal of a decision point from the quantity of decision points by the vehicle (see at least Konig [0085] “Generating an alternative route in respect of a decision point along a main route, e.g. the first or a next decision point, may be triggered, e.g. by the current position of the user coming within a predetermined distance of the decision point, or by the user passing a preceding decision point. Preferably the step of generating an alternative route from a decision point of a main route to the destination is carried out during travel along the main route, e.g. when approaching the decision point.”)
submitting a request to provide a further predicted route and a further quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server after the vehicle has traversed the decision point (see at least Konig [0085] “Generating an alternative route in respect of a decision point along a main route, e.g. the first or a next decision point, may be triggered, e.g. by the current position of the user coming within a predetermined distance of the decision point, or by the user passing a preceding decision point. Preferably the step of generating an alternative route from a decision point of a main route to the destination is carried out during travel along the main route, e.g. when approaching the decision point.” See also [0079] “Data indicative of the main route, and optionally an alternative route between the origin and destination of the second origin-destination pair, or a decision point and the destination of the second origin-destination pair, is preferably output to a user via a mobile device. The mobile device may be associated with a vehicle in which the user is travelling, and is preferably a navigation device. The navigation device may be an integrated navigation device or a portable navigation device (PND), e.g. handheld device, associated with the vehicle. The device is preferably the same device which performs some or all of the steps of generating routes through the network in accordance with the invention. However it is envisaged that some or all of the route generation steps may be carried out by a remote device, e.g. a server, and transmitted to the device for output to a user.” See also [0043] “For example route generation may be carried out by a server, e.g. at the request of a navigation device, and provided to the device for output to a user.” And [0252] “ne service provided by the server 150 involves processing requests from the navigation device 200 and transmitting navigation data from the mass data storage 160 to the navigation device 200.”);and
and receiving the further predicted route and the further quantity of decision points from the backend server by the vehicle(see at least Konig [0079] “Data indicative of the main route, and optionally an alternative route between the origin and destination of the second origin-destination pair, or a decision point and the destination of the second origin-destination pair, is preferably output to a user via a mobile device. The mobile device may be associated with a vehicle in which the user is travelling, and is preferably a navigation device. The navigation device may be an integrated navigation device or a portable navigation device (PND), e.g. handheld device, associated with the vehicle. The device is preferably the same device which performs some or all of the steps of generating routes through the network in accordance with the invention. However it is envisaged that some or all of the route generation steps may be carried out by a remote device, e.g. a server, and transmitted to the device for output to a user.”)
Regarding claim 12, Konig discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein a decision point is a waypoint at which driven routes of the vehicle branch off (see at least Konig [0045] “The method of the present invention relates to generating alternative routes through a navigable network represented by an electronic map, and within which a sub-network is defined. The sub-network is represented by a subset of the plurality of segments and nodes which represent segments and nodes of the navigable network. The segments of the sub-network correspond to segments of routes which define a network of intersecting routes through the navigable network between an origin and destination of a first origin-destination pair. The segments of the network of routes intersect with one another at nodes of the sub-network. The nodes of the sub-network include nodes indicative of decision points of the sub-network at which there are two or more outgoing segments. Thus, a decision point of the sub-network is a point at which segments of the sub-network diverge.”)
Regarding claim 13, Konig discloses the method as claimed in claim 12, wherein the quantity of decision points is determined by the backend server depending on one or more historical trajectories of a user of the vehicle (see at least Konig “[0048] In some embodiments the sub-network is defined by segments of a set of previously travelled routes through the navigable network between the origin and the destination of the first origin-destination pair. The sub-network may therefore be referred to as a personal network, and comprises routes previously travelled by the user. The personal network defining the sub-network may itself be defined by a subset of routes previously travelled by a user, i.e. a subset of a larger personal network which includes routes travelled between different origin destination pairs. The step of defining the sub-network may comprise using stored data indicative of routes previously travelled through the navigable network to obtain the network of routes between the origin and destination providing the sub-network. In these embodiments, the routes whose segments define the sub-network correspond to historic routes. The steps involved in obtaining a set of stored previously travelled routes may involve, for example, a navigation device storing positional data during travel along the routes.” See also Konig [317])
Regarding claim 14, Konig discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the quantity of decision points is determined by the backend server depending on one or more historical trajectories of a user of the vehicle (see at least Konig “[0048] In some embodiments the sub-network is defined by segments of a set of previously travelled routes through the navigable network between the origin and the destination of the first origin-destination pair. The sub-network may therefore be referred to as a personal network, and comprises routes previously travelled by the user. The personal network defining the sub-network may itself be defined by a subset of routes previously travelled by a user, i.e. a subset of a larger personal network which includes routes travelled between different origin destination pairs. The step of defining the sub-network may comprise using stored data indicative of routes previously travelled through the navigable network to obtain the network of routes between the origin and destination providing the sub-network. In these embodiments, the routes whose segments define the sub-network correspond to historic routes. The steps involved in obtaining a set of stored previously travelled routes may involve, for example, a navigation device storing positional data during travel along the routes.” See also Konig [317])
Regarding claim 15, Konig discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein:
an importance is associated with each decision point (see at least Konig, significant decision points that are more likely, probable or are not blocked, [0028] “The decision point is a decision point of a predefined sub-network of segments corresponding to segments of (alternative) routes between the origin and destination of a first origin-destination pair, and the generation of, at least, the alternative route favours the segments representative of the sub-network. By referring to data indicative of elements of a predefined sub-network in this way to identify a decision point in relation to which an alternative route is to be generated, and also in generating the alternative route, it has been found that useful alternative routes may be generated in a more efficient manner. The alternative routes may be generated only in relation to significant decision points, corresponding to decision points of the sub-network, providing greater processing efficiency, and avoiding overloading a user with information. By favouring the segments of the sub-network in generating the route, more appropriate routes may be generated. Furthermore, when generating the alternative route at a decision point, an outgoing segment of the existing main route is blocked. This may help to ensure that a useful alternative route is obtained, differing appreciably from the main route. The present invention may allow alternative routes to be obtained with greater data efficiency, making the methods particularly suitable for implementation by a mobile device, e.g. navigation device” See also “[0297] It will be appreciated that in this way, alternative routes are generated in relation to decision points of the sub-network, which may correspond to more significant decision points, where useful alternatives are likely to exist. The use of the sub-network provides a way of selecting decision points in relation to which to generate alternative routes, avoiding overloading the user with information.”); and
the quantity of decision points includes one or more decision points with an importance exceeding a predetermined minimum importance threshold (see at least Konig, significant decision points that are more likely, probable or are not blocked, [0028] “The decision point is a decision point of a predefined sub-network of segments corresponding to segments of (alternative) routes between the origin and destination of a first origin-destination pair, and the generation of, at least, the alternative route favours the segments representative of the sub-network. By referring to data indicative of elements of a predefined sub-network in this way to identify a decision point in relation to which an alternative route is to be generated, and also in generating the alternative route, it has been found that useful alternative routes may be generated in a more efficient manner. The alternative routes may be generated only in relation to significant decision points, corresponding to decision points of the sub-network, providing greater processing efficiency, and avoiding overloading a user with information. By favouring the segments of the sub-network in generating the route, more appropriate routes may be generated. Furthermore, when generating the alternative route at a decision point, an outgoing segment of the existing main route is blocked. This may help to ensure that a useful alternative route is obtained, differing appreciably from the main route. The present invention may allow alternative routes to be obtained with greater data efficiency, making the methods particularly suitable for implementation by a mobile device, e.g. navigation device” See also “[0297] It will be appreciated that in this way, alternative routes are generated in relation to decision points of the sub-network, which may correspond to more significant decision points, where useful alternatives are likely to exist. The use of the sub-network provides a way of selecting decision points in relation to which to generate alternative routes, avoiding overloading the user with information.”).
Regarding claim 16, Konig discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, further comprising: providing the predicted route as a navigation route suggestion to a user of the vehicle (see at least Konig, Figures 10A-10B and [0317-0318] “[0317] At the position of the first decision point 56, an icon 62 is provided, indicative of the existence of the alternative route. This icon is in the form of an arrow pointing to the right, indicating that the alternative route involves a right hand turn. The icon may be coloured to indicate whether the alternative route is faster than the main route being followed or not. An indication of a time saving (or time penalty) that would be incurred by taking the route relative to the main route may be displayed alternating with the arrow. It will be appreciated that the invention seeks to provide an alternative route option at each decision point along the route, or at least at each decision point at which it is desired to provide alternatives, e.g. significant decision points, decision points of a sub-network, etc. Thus, the alternative routes may not always be a faster route. The aim is to provide the user with greater choice, and control over their route taken. The icon 62 may be annotated to show that there is traffic affecting the route, such as using a red dot, or similar….[0318] The icon 62 indicative of the alternative route may be selected by a user, e.g. by touching the icon. If the user selects the alternative route icon 62, the method involves presenting the user with a map view, illustrating the main route and the alternative route from the first decision point to the destination, together with comparative timing information for the routes—step 49. One such map view is shown in FIG. 10b. The map includes a representation 64 of the main route from the current position to the destination, a representation 66 of the alternative route from the first decision point to the destination, an icon indicative of the current position 68, and an icon indicative of the destination 70. The alternative route and the main route representations are coloured differently… The representations of the main route and the alternative route are manually selectable by a user to enable the user to indicate which route they wish to take.”)
Regarding claim 17, Konig discloses the method as claimed in claim 16, further comprising:
activating a navigation of the vehicle using the predicted route or the further predicted route in response to an operating input of the user of the vehicle to accept the navigation route suggestion (see at least Konig, Figures 10A-10D and [0317-0319] [0319] “When it is detected that the user has selected the representation of the main route, the navigation device will disregard the alternative route, and continue to provide navigation instructions in relation to the existing main route after the user passes through the first decision point—step 50. The display reverts to the 2D map view, with an associated route bar as shown in FIG. 10c. The route bar no longer shows the first decision point and its alternative route. When it is detected that the user has selected the representation of the alternative route, the navigation device will take the alternative route as the new main route after passing through the first decision point, and will provide navigation instructions in relation to the alternative route from that point—step 52. FIG. 10d illustrates the display that may be provided to the user. The 2D map view now shows the route ahead as involving the right turn onto the alternative route at the decision point.”).
Regarding claim 18, Konig discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, further comprising: providing the further predicted route as a navigation route suggestion to a user of the vehicle (see at least Konig, Figures 10A-10B and [0317-0318] “[0317] At the position of the first decision point 56, an icon 62 is provided, indicative of the existence of the alternative route. This icon is in the form of an arrow pointing to the right, indicating that the alternative route involves a right hand turn. The icon may be coloured to indicate whether the alternative route is faster than the main route being followed or not. An indication of a time saving (or time penalty) that would be incurred by taking the route relative to the main route may be displayed alternating with the arrow. It will be appreciated that the invention seeks to provide an alternative route option at each decision point along the route, or at least at each decision point at which it is desired to provide alternatives, e.g. significant decision points, decision points of a sub-network, etc. Thus, the alternative routes may not always be a faster route. The aim is to provide the user with greater choice, and control over their route taken. The icon 62 may be annotated to show that there is traffic affecting the route, such as using a red dot, or similar….[0318] The icon 62 indicative of the alternative route may be selected by a user, e.g. by touching the icon. If the user selects the alternative route icon 62, the method involves presenting the user with a map view, illustrating the main route and the alternative route from the first decision point to the destination, together with comparative timing information for the routes—step 49. One such map view is shown in FIG. 10b. The map includes a representation 64 of the main route from the current position to the destination, a representation 66 of the alternative route from the first decision point to the destination, an icon indicative of the current position 68, and an icon indicative of the destination 70. The alternative route and the main route representations are coloured differently… The representations of the main route and the alternative route are manually selectable by a user to enable the user to indicate which route they wish to take.”).
Regarding claim 26, Konig discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium for requesting predicted routes from a backend server by means of a vehicle, wherein the computer-readable medium contains instructions which, when executed by a computer or a control unit, carry out the method as claimed in claim 11 (see at least Konig Figure 2 and [0217-0218] [0217] “Any of the methods in accordance with the present invention may be implemented at least partially using software, e.g. computer programs. The present invention thus also extends to a computer program comprising computer readable instructions executable to perform, or to cause a navigation device and/or server to perform, a method according to any of the aspects or embodiments of the invention…[0218] The invention correspondingly extends to a computer software carrier comprising such software which, when used to operate a system or apparatus comprising data processing means causes, in conjunction with said data processing means, said apparatus or system to carry out the steps of the methods of the present invention. Such a computer software carrier could be a non-transitory physical storage medium such as a ROM chip, CD ROM or disk, or could be a signal such as an electronic signal over wires, an optical signal or a radio signal such as to a satellite or the like. The present invention provides a machine readable medium containing instructions which when read by a machine cause the machine to operate according to the method of any of the aspects or embodiments of the invention.”.)
Regarding claim 27, Konig discloses a system for requesting predicted routes from a backend server by means of a vehicle, wherein the system is designed to carry out the method as claimed in claim 11 (see at least Konig Figure 2, Navigation device 200, and [0255] “The navigation device 200 may be provided with information from the server 150 via information downloads which may be updated automatically, from time to time, or upon a user connecting the navigation device 200 to the server 150 and/or may be more dynamic upon a more constant or frequent connection being made between the server 150 and navigation device 200 via a wireless mobile connection device and TCP/IP connection for example.” See also[0217-0218])
Regarding claim 28, Konig discloses a vehicle containing the system for requesting predicted routes from the backend server as claimed in claim 27 (see at least Konig [0235] “It follows therefore that in the context of the present application, a navigation device is intended to include (without limitation) any type of route planning and navigation device, irrespective of whether that device is embodied as a PND, a vehicle such as an automobile, or indeed a portable computing resource, for example a portable personal computer (PC), a mobile telephone or a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) executing route planning and navigation software.” See also [0168] “The navigation device is a mobile device, and may be a PND or an integrated, e.g. in-vehicle…” and [0039] In preferred embodiments the method of the present invention in any of its aspects or embodiments is carried out using a mobile device, such as a navigation device, and the present invention extends to a mobile, e.g. navigation, device arranged to carry out the steps of the method of any of the aspects or embodiments of the invention. The navigation device may be a PND or an integrated, e.g. in-vehicle, device.” See also [0079] and [0090]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konig in view of Kane (US-20010049581-A1, hereinafter “Kane”).
Regarding claim 19, Konig discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose
wherein determining the traversal of the decision point includes determining whether the vehicle first enters a first specified circle around the decision point and then leaves a second specified circle around the decision point; and
wherein a radius of the first specified circle is smaller than a radius of the second specified circle.
Kane teaches:
wherein determining the traversal of the decision point includes determining whether the vehicle first enters a first specified circle around the decision point and then leaves a second specified circle around the decision point (see at least Kane [0025] “In a transit domain, each timepoint may be termed a transit point 104. Transit point 104 may include, among other data, any combination of an ID number, a latitude, a longitude, an altitude, a position source, a datum, an estimated horizontal error (EHE), an estimated positional error (EPE), a short name, a long name or description, an attribute set (possibly supplying the type of location, stop, point of interest, etc.) a departure radius, an arrival radius, a list of transit indices, and a layover time. Any combination of this information may be logged at each transit point, by issuing a command to laptop computer 24 to log the point, and stored in database 42.” and [0035] “Planning system 200 includes logging positions 204. Each position may include, among other data, a coordinate position, such as a latitude or a longitude and altitude, an id number, a source (such as a GPS or a user), a datum, EHE, and EPE. Once a position 204 has been logged, a number of attributes may be attached thereto. For example, a location 208 attribute may be attached to each position 204, location attribute 208 may include an ID number a short name, a long name or description, and an attribute set 212. Attribute set 212 may include an id number, a departure radius, and an arrival radius. The departure and arrival radii provides a level of tolerance such that when a vehicle, or other entity enters the arrival radius or is within the departure radius, the vehicle or entity is defined to be at that navigation point. For example, the arrival radius for a "park and ride" bus stop may be defined to encompass the entire "park and ride" facility. Thus, when the bus enters the "park and ride" facility, the bus is defined as being at the corresponding navigation point.” See also [0022]); and
wherein a radius of the first specified circle is smaller than a radius of the second specified circle (see at least Kane [0025] and [0035] which teaches an arrival radius and a departure radius, while Kane does not explicitly state that the arrival radius is smaller than the departure radius, this is implicit in the teaching as a departure radius would be larger than an arrival radius to indicate it is outside of the arrival area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Konig with the teaching of Kane, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Kane teaches this allows for a level of tolerance in determining whether the vehicle has entered or departed the area (Kane [0035]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Konig and Kane teach the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein the vehicle receives the radius of the first specified circle and the radius of the second specified circle for each decision point with the quantity of decision points from the backend server (see at least Kane [0022] “Referring again to FIG. 1, in an exemplary embodiment, after all of the timepoints have been logged, the associated data is stored in a database on laptop computer 24. The laptop database may be downloaded into a database 42 on database 42 on dispatch computer 40.” See also [0025] and [0035]).
Claim(s) 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konig in view of McGavran et al. (US-20140279723-A1, hereinafter “McGavran”).
Regarding claim 21, Konig discloses the discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, including disclosing repeating the process continually during progress along the main route to the destination, but does not explicitly disclose:
transmitting a time-controlled request for provision of the further predicted route and the further quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server if a last request exceeds a specified period of time.
McGavran teaches:
transmitting a time-controlled request for provision of the further predicted route and the further quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server if a last request exceeds a specified period of time (see at least McGavran [0021-0022] “The route prediction engine 105 periodically performs automated processes that formulate predictions about current or future destinations of the device and/or formulate routes to such destinations for the device based on, e.g., the information stored in the databases 115 and 120. Based on these formulations, this engine then directs other modules of the device to relay relevant information to the user….[0022] In different embodiments, the route prediction engine 105 performs its automated processes with different frequencies. For instance, to identify possible patterns of travel, it runs these processes once a day in some embodiments, several times a day in other embodiments, several times an hour in yet other embodiments, and several times a minute in still other embodiments. In addition, some embodiments allow the user of the device to configure how often or how aggressively the route prediction engine should perform its automated processes.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Konig with the teaching of McGavran to have a time-constrained request, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as McGavran teaches this allows the user of the device to configure how often or how aggressively the route prediction engine should perform its automated processes and reduce computation requirements.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Konig and McGavran teaches the method as claimed in claim 21, further comprising: suppressing the time-controlled request to provide the further predicted route and the further quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server if a distance of the vehicle from a next decision point of the predicted route falls below a predetermined distance threshold (see at least Konig [0083] “In preferred embodiments the step of generating an alternative route between a decision point of the sub-network along the main route and the destination is carried out only in respect of the first, i.e. next, decision point of the sub-network along the main route ahead of a current position along the main route. As it is not certain whether the user will take the main route or an alternative route at a forthcoming decision point, there is typically little, if any, need in determining alternative routes in relation to subsequent decision points along the current main route at that stage. This may lead to unnecessary data processing and storage. Instead, it is more efficient to wait until the route taken by the user after passing through the next decision point is known. Thus, it is only necessary to look ahead to the next decision point of the sub-network along the current route to generate alternative route options. Once the decision point has been passed, the step of identifying the next decision point may be repeated, this time in relation to the main route followed after passing through the first decision point, and one or more alternative routes generated to the destination of the second origin-destination pair. Again, preferably this step is carried out only in relation to the next decision point..)
Regarding claim 23, Konig discloses the method as claimed in claim 21, further comprising: suppressing the time-controlled request to provide the further predicted route and the further quantity of decision points from the vehicle to the backend server if a time span to reach a next decision point falls below a predetermined time threshold (see at least Konig [0083] “In preferred embodiments the step of generating an alternative route between a decision point of the sub-network along the main route and the destination is carried out only in respect of the first, i.e. next, decision point of the sub-network along the main route ahead of a current position along the main route. As it is not certain whether the user will take the main route or an alternative route at a forthcoming decision point, there is typically little, if any, need in determining alternative routes in relation to subsequent decision points along the current main route at that stage. This may lead to unnecessary data processing and storage. Instead, it is more efficient to wait until the route taken by the user after passing through the next decision point is known. Thus, it is only necessary to look ahead to the next decision point of the sub-network along the current route to generate alternative route options. Once the decision point has been passed, the step of identifying the next decision point may be repeated, this time in relation to the main route followed after passing through the first decision point, and one or more alternative routes generated to the destination of the second origin-destination pair. Again, preferably this step is carried out only in relation to the next decision point.” See also [0146] The examiner notes that while Konig teaches that the next decision point is provided when within a certain distance, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the distance could be converted to time. The examiner notes that Konig teaches estimating time to destination [0146] and thus could similarly estimate time to the next node of the route.)
Regarding claim 24, Konig discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising: providing the predicted route as a navigation route suggestion to a user of the vehicle (see at least Konig, Figures 10A-10B and [0317-0318] “[0317] At the position of the first decision point 56, an icon 62 is provided, indicative of the existence of the alternative route. This icon is in the form of an arrow pointing to the right, indicating that the alternative route involves a right hand turn. The icon may be coloured to indicate whether the alternative route is faster than the main route being followed or not. An indication of a time saving (or time penalty) that would be incurred by taking the route relative to the main route may be displayed alternating with the arrow. It will be appreciated that the invention seeks to provide an alternative route option at each decision point along the route, or at least at each decision point at which it is desired to provide alternatives, e.g. significant decision points, decision points of a sub-network, etc. Thus, the alternative routes may not always be a faster route. The aim is to provide the user with greater choice, and control over their route taken. The icon 62 may be annotated to show that there is traffic affecting the route, such as using a red dot, or similar….[0318] The icon 62 indicative of the alternative route may be selected by a user, e.g. by touching the icon. If the user selects the alternative route icon 62, the method involves presenting the user with a map view, illustrating the main route and the alternative route from the first decision point to the destination, together with comparative timing information for the routes—step 49. One such map view is shown in FIG. 10b. The map includes a representation 64 of the main route from the current position to the destination, a representation 66 of the alternative route from the first decision point to the destination, an icon indicative of the current position 68, and an icon indicative of the destination 70. The alternative route and the main route representations are coloured differently… The representations of the main route and the alternative route are manually selectable by a user to enable the user to indicate which route they wish to take.”).
Regarding claim 25, Konig discloses the method as claimed in claim 24, further comprising: activating a navigation of the vehicle using the predicted route or the further predicted route in response to an operating input of the user of the vehicle to accept the navigation route suggestion (see at least Konig, Figures 10A-10D and [0317-0319] [0319] “When it is detected that the user has selected the representation of the main route, the navigation device will disregard the alternative route, and continue to provide navigation instructions in relation to the existing main route after the user passes through the first decision point—step 50. The display reverts to the 2D map view, with an associated route bar as shown in FIG. 10c. The route bar no longer shows the first decision point and its alternative route. When it is detected that the user has selected the representation of the alternative route, the navigation device will take the alternative route as the new main route after passing through the first decision point, and will provide navigation instructions in relation to the alternative route from that point—step 52. FIG. 10d illustrates the display that may be provided to the user. The 2D map view now shows the route ahead as involving the right turn onto the alternative route at the decision point.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hansen (US-20100324817-A1), Kroeller (US-20170146353-A1) and Schlesinger (US-20170328725-A), are cited teaching determining a predicted route relevant to the instant claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662