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 4 November 2024
Claims 15-34 have been added.
Claims 1-14 have been canceled.
Claims 15-34 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 4 November 2024 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
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 16 - 19, 20, 25 - 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 16 recites the limitation "a first quantity of decision points". Claim 16 depends from Claim 15 which recites “a first quantity of decision points” in line 6. It is not clear if the first quantity of decision points of Claim 16 is the same as the first quantity of decision points as that recited in Claim 15.
Claim 20 recites “a decision point”. Claim 20 depends from Claim 15 recites which recites “a decision point” in line 8. It is not clear if “a decision point” of Claim 20 is the same as “a decision point” of Claim 15.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "a first quantity of decision points". Claim 25 depends from claim 15 which recites “a first quantity of decision points” in line 6. It is not clear if the first quantity of decision points of Claim 25 is the same as the first quantity of decision points as that recited in Claim 15.
Claim 17, 18, 19 depends from Claim 16 and are 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 26, 27, 28, depend from Claim 25 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 25.
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 15-32 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
Independent Claim 15 are directed toward a method, Claim 30 is directed toward non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions when executed by a computer or a control unit, carry out the method and Claim 31 is directed toward a system. Therefore, each of the independent claims 15, 30, and 31 along with the corresponding dependent claims 16-29, and 32 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts.
In this case, the independent claims 15, 30 and 31 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes.
Independent claim 15 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Claim 1 recites:
A method for providing navigation data from a backend server to a vehicle during a journey with the vehicle, the method including:transmitting a first request message from the vehicle to the backend server to request a first quantity of navigation data;
receiving the first quantity of navigation data by the vehicle from the backend server in response to the first request message, wherein the first quantity of navigation data includes a first quantity of decision points;
determining a traversal of a decision point from the first quantity of decision points by the vehicle; and
responsive at least in part to the decision point from the first quantity of decision points being traversed:
transmitting a second request message from the vehicle to the backend server to request a second quantity of navigation data; and
receiving the second quantity of navigation data by the vehicle from the backend server in response to the second request message.
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 first quantity of decision points;” and “responsive at least in part to the decision point from the first quantity of decision points being traversed” 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 waypoint on the route and selecting a further request to the user interface of the navigational display to update the route with additional navigation data and waypoints (decision points).
As explained above, independent claim 15 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 30 and 31, which are of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1. 1
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 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 idea 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 such as 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”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
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”):
A method for providing navigation data from a backend server to a vehicle during a journey with the vehicle, the method including:transmitting a first request message from the vehicle to the backend server to request a first quantity of navigation data;
receiving the first quantity of navigation data by the vehicle from the backend server in response to the first request message, wherein the first quantity of navigation data includes a first quantity of decision points;
determining a traversal of a decision point from the first quantity of decision points by the vehicle; and
responsive at least in part to the decision point from the first quantity of decision points being traversed:
transmitting a second request message from the vehicle to the backend server to request a second quantity of navigation data; and
receiving the second quantity of navigation data by the vehicle from the backend server in response to the second request message.
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 “transmitting a first request message from the vehicle to the backend server to request a first quantity of navigation data;” “receiving the first quantity of navigation data by the vehicle from the backend server in response to the first request message, wherein the first quantity of navigation data includes a first quantity of decision points”, “by the vehicle”, “transmitting a second request message from the vehicle to the backend server to request a second quantity of navigation data”, and “receiving the second quantity of navigation data by the vehicle from the backend server in response to the second request message” 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” is recited at a high level of generality and simply describes using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of “determining” and “responsive to”. 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 “transmitting a first request message from the vehicle to the backend server to request a first quantity of navigation data;” “receiving the first quantity of navigation data by the vehicle from the backend server in response to the first request message, wherein the first quantity of navigation data includes a first quantity of decision points”, “transmitting a second request message from the vehicle to the backend server to request a second quantity of navigation data”, and “receiving the second quantity of navigation data by the vehicle from the backend server in response to the second request message” are 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” 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. 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.
Therefore, independent claims 15, 30 and 31 are directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, the representative independent claim 15, 30 and 31do 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” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or generic components and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer or generic components that are simply employed as a tool does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “transmitting a first request message from the vehicle to the backend server to request a first quantity of navigation data;” “receiving the first quantity of navigation data by the vehicle from the backend server in response to the first request message, wherein the first quantity of navigation data includes a first quantity of decision points”, “transmitting a second request message from the vehicle to the backend server to request a second quantity of navigation data”, and “receiving the second quantity of navigation data by the vehicle from the backend server in response to the second request message”, the examiner submits are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Regarding the additional limitations of “by the 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).
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent Claims 15, 30 and 31 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims 16-29, and 32 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 16-29, and 32 when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claim(s) 16-29, and 32 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 and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent Claims 16-29, and 32 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 15, 30 and 31.
Therefore, claim(s) 15-32 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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) 15, 20, 29 - 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Konig et al. (US-20170314944-A1, hereinafter “Konig”).
As per Claim 15,
Konig discloses,
A method for providing navigation data from a backend server to a vehicle during a journey with the vehicle, the method including:
transmitting a first request message from the vehicle to the backend server to request a first quantity of navigation data (see at least [0043] Of course, the steps of the method of the present invention in any of its aspects or embodiments may be carried out in part by a server and in part by a navigation apparatus. 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. The steps of the method may be performed exclusively on a server, or some on a server and the others on a navigation device in any combination, or exclusively on a navigation device)
receiving the first quantity of navigation data by the vehicle from the backend server in response to the first request message, wherein the first quantity of navigation data (see at least [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.)
includes a first quantity of decision points; (see at least 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 first quantity of decision points by the vehicle; and (see at least [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.)
responsive at least in part to the decision point from the first quantity of decision points being traversed:
transmitting a second request message from the vehicle to the backend server to request a second quantity of navigation data; and (see at least [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, [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, [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] 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.)
receiving the second quantity of navigation data by the vehicle from the backend server in response to the second request message (see at least [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.)
As per Claim 20,
Konig discloses,
The method as claimed in claim 15, wherein a decision point is a waypoint of multiple routes driven by the vehicle, at which the multiple routes driven by the vehicle branch off to different destinations (see at least [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.)
As per Claim 29,
Konig discloses,
The method as claimed in claim 15, further comprising:
transmitting a third request message from the vehicle to the backend server to request a third quantity of navigation data depending on a distance of a current position of the vehicle from a decision point from the first quantity of decision points or the second quantity of decision points; or (see at least [0144] The first and second, and where applicable third, etc, decision points are preferably successive decision points of the sub-network along the main route), and [0146] The properties preferably include one or more dynamically changing properties, such as one or more of an estimated time of arrival at the destination along the route, a traffic condition on the route, and a fuel consumption when taking the route to the destination. The method may comprise dynamically updating the stored data indicative of the one or more dynamically changing properties during travel along the main route. For example, the data indicative of the dynamically changing properties may be updated at a given time interval as the user travels along the main route. The method may comprise providing the stored data, or data derived therefrom, to a user. For example, an indication of a route on a display of the navigation device can comprise an icon representative that there is traffic on the route).
transmitting a third request message from the vehicle to the backend server to request a third quantity of navigation data if a last request exceeds a specified period of time; or (see at least [0148] in addition to refreshing the route pool when a decision point has been passed, the route pool may be updated if a dynamically changing property of a route changes by more than a given amount. This may suggest that, e.g. due to current traffic conditions, the route is no longer optimal, e.g. with respect to duration, and that a new set of alternative routes needs to be generated based on current conditions).
suppressing the first request message, the second request message, or the third request message from the vehicle to the backend server at least in part based on whether a distance of the vehicle from a next decision point falls below a specified distance threshold or a period of time to reach the next decision point falls below a specified time threshold.
As per Claim 30,
Konig discloses,
A non-transitory computer-readable medium for providing a quantity of navigation data from a backend server to a vehicle during a journey with the vehicle, wherein the non- transitory computer-readable medium contains instructions which, when executed on a control unit or a computer, carry out the method as claimed in claim 15 (see at least Figure 2, [0036] The present invention is a computer implemented invention, and any of the steps described in relation to any of the aspects or embodiments of the invention may be carried out under the control of a set of one or more processors, and [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).
As per Claim 31,
Konig discloses,
A system for providing a quantity of navigation data from a backend server to a vehicle during a journey with the vehicle, wherein the system is designed to carry out the method as claimed in claim 15 (see at least 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])
As per Claim 32,
Konig discloses,
A vehicle containing the system for providing a quantity of navigation data from a backend server to a vehicle during a journey with the vehicle as claimed in claim 31 (see at least [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, [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.
Claims 16-19, 25, 27, 28 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konig in view of Christian Winge Vigild et. al. US 20210293557 (“Vigild”).
As per Claim 16,
Konig does not disclose,
wherein the first quantity of navigation data includes a first quantity of destinations and a first quantity of decision points.
Vigild teaches,
wherein the first quantity of navigation data includes a first quantity of destinations and a first quantity of decision points (see at least [Claim1] determining a prediction starting location and a plurality of prediction destinations, the destinations including a plurality of possible intersections, one per destination), [0015] The method enables a production of an array of possible destinations WPx of a driver not as driving final destinations, but rather as driving horizons H(WPx), which enable planning of control strategies for drive systems of motor vehicles, and [0040] The object thus consists of preparing driving routes which connect the starting point sx to each waypoint WPx, and to apply Equation 1 in iterative form along the respective defined driving route up to the waypoint.
Thus, Konig discloses method for determining a route taken by a user at a decision point in a navigable network and Vigild teaches method for predicting travel of a vehicle includes determining a prediction starting location and a plurality of prediction destinations.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Konig with prediction method for improving the optimization of the behavior of a drive system of a motor vehicle as taught by Vigild, with a reasonable expectation of success, to a production of an array of possible destinations WPx of a driver not as driving final destinations, but rather as driving horizons H(WPx), which enable planning of control strategies for drive systems of motor vehicles (0015).
As per Claim 17,
Konig does not disclose,
wherein the second quantity of navigation data includes at least one of the group consisting of a second quantity of destinations and a second quantity of decision points.
Vigild teaches,
wherein the second quantity of navigation data includes at least one of the group consisting of a second quantity of destinations and a second quantity of decision points (see at least [0062] the predicted driving route to the waypoint W1 is still the main route and nothing changes. If the action of the motor vehicle at the intersection F is not as predicted, as shown in FIG. 7, the predicted driving route to the waypoint W1 is not the main route and according to FIG. 7 is also not the driving route to the waypoint W3, which is among the most probable waypoints, then new calculations have to be carried out, wherein according to FIG. 7, the intersection E is now used as a starting point in the direction of intersection G. Probabilities for the waypoints are calculated along the driving routes from intersection E to each waypoint, and the waypoints having the highest probability (for example, W5 and W1) are taken into consideration for the calculation of the driving conditions).
Thus, Konig discloses method for determining a route taken by a user at a decision point in a navigable network and Vigild teaches method for predicting travel of a vehicle includes determining a prediction starting location and a plurality of prediction destinations.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Konig with prediction method for improving the optimization of the behavior of a drive system of a motor vehicle as taught by Vigild, with a reasonable expectation of success, to a production of an array of possible destinations WPx of a driver not as driving final destinations, but rather as driving horizons H(WPx), which enable planning of control strategies for drive systems of motor vehicles (0015).
As per Claim 18,
Konig does not disclose,
wherein the second quantity of navigation data preferably includes the second quantity of decision points if the second quantity of decision points is different from the first quantity of decision points.
Vigild teaches,
wherein the second quantity of navigation data preferably includes the second quantity of decision points if the second quantity of decision points is different from the first quantity of decision points (see at least [ Claim 2] determining a new plurality of prediction destinations including a plurality of possible new intersections, obtained based on map data, within a boundary at a predefined distance from the new starting location; and [Claim 2]repeating the determining, for each new destination, at least one route to the new destination, resulting in a plurality of routes at least one of which corresponds to each new destination).
Thus, Konig discloses method for determining a route taken by a user at a decision point in a navigable network and Vigild teaches method for predicting travel of a vehicle includes determining a prediction starting location and a plurality of prediction destinations.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Konig with prediction method for improving the optimization of the behavior of a drive system of a motor vehicle as taught by Vigild, with a reasonable expectation of success, to a production of an array of possible destinations WPx of a driver not as driving final destinations, but rather as driving horizons H(WPx), which enable planning of control strategies for drive systems of motor vehicles (0015).
As per Claim 19,
Konig does not disclose,
wherein the second quantity of navigation data includes a second quantity of destinations, and wherein:
the first quantity of destinations includes one or more predicted destinations; or the second quantity of destinations includes one or more predicted destinations
Vigild teaches,
wherein the second quantity of navigation data includes a second quantity of destinations, and wherein:
the first quantity of destinations includes one or more predicted destinations; or the second quantity of destinations includes one or more predicted destinations (see at least [0014] As soon as the driver approaches the edge of the prediction horizon, a new horizon can be ascertained. Moreover, a new driving route can then be ascertained), [0019] A further embodiment provides that after a passing of the intersection it is ascertained whether or not the motor vehicle is located on the ascertained driving route, and a new driving route is ascertained if the motor vehicle is no longer located on the ascertained driving route. If the motor vehicle is no longer located on the ascertained driving route, a new set of driving routes to waypoints can be calculated and the probabilities of waypoints can be updated, in order to determine a new most probable waypoint), and [0033] The structure S(θ) includes two topological elements which form the graphic grid, namely intersections Jx, i.e., points which connect the roads, and roads sx, wherein the term “road” is understood as any drivable path between two intersections).
Thus, Konig discloses method for determining a route taken by a user at a decision point in a navigable network and Vigild teaches method for predicting travel of a vehicle includes determining a prediction starting location and a plurality of prediction destinations.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Konig with prediction method for improving the optimization of the behavior of a drive system of a motor vehicle as taught by Vigild, with a reasonable expectation of success, to a production of an array of possible destinations WPx of a driver not as driving final destinations, but rather as driving horizons H(WPx), which enable planning of control strategies for drive systems of motor vehicles (0015).
As per Claim 25,
Konig disclose,
receiving the first request message to request the first quantity of navigation data from the vehicle by the backend server; (see at least [0043] Of course, the steps of the method of the present invention in any of its aspects or embodiments may be carried out in part by a server and in part by a navigation apparatus. 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. The steps of the method may be performed exclusively on a server, or some on a server and the others on a navigation device in any combination, or exclusively on a navigation device)
transmitting the first quantity of navigation data including the reduced first quantity of decision points and the first quantity of destinations from the backend server to the vehicle in response to the first request message (see at least [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).
Konig does not disclose,
determining a first quantity of destinations of the first quantity of navigation data by the backend server;
determining a first quantity of decision points of the first quantity of navigation data by the backend server;
reducing a number of decision points of the first quantity of decision points by the backend server;
Vigild teaches,
determining a first quantity of destinations of the first quantity of navigation data by the backend server; (see at least [Claim 1] determining a prediction starting location and a plurality of prediction destinations, the destinations including a plurality of possible intersections, one per destination, obtained based on map data, within a boundary at a predefined distance from the starting location, and [ Claim 1] determining, for each destination, at least one route to the destination, resulting in a plurality of routes at least one of which corresponds to each destination).
determining a first quantity of decision points of the first quantity of navigation data by the backend server; (see at least [Claim 1] for each intersection along a potential route between the starting location and a first destination, determining a statistical likelihood of the vehicle remaining on an intersection-exit that is along the potential route, wherein the likelihood is determined based at least on the likelihood that a vehicle will be on the potential route leading into the intersection and based on data indicating intersection-exits chosen by a plurality of vehicles).
reducing a number of decision points of the first quantity of decision points by the backend server; (see at least [Claim 1] selecting, from a plurality of potential routes to each destination, at least one route to each destination with the highest statistical likelihood, represented by an aggregate statistical likelihood that the vehicle remains on the potential route when passing through all intersections along the route).
Thus, Konig discloses method for determining a route taken by a user at a decision point in a navigable network and Vigild teaches method for predicting travel of a vehicle includes determining a prediction starting location and a plurality of prediction destinations.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Konig with prediction method for improving the optimization of the behavior of a drive system of a motor vehicle as taught by Vigild, with a reasonable expectation of success, to a production of an array of possible destinations WPx of a driver not as driving final destinations, but rather as driving horizons H(WPx), which enable planning of control strategies for drive systems of motor vehicles (0015).
As per Claim 27,
Konig does not disclose,
wherein the first quantity of destinations of the first quantity of navigation data includes one or more destinations of routes driven by the vehicle
Vigild teaches,
wherein the first quantity of destinations of the first quantity of navigation data includes one or more destinations of routes driven by the vehicle (see at least (see at least [0004] A behavior prediction application predicts a driving route based on preferences of a driver and on preferred driving destinations and/or driving routes which were covered in the past. The preferences of a specific driver can be learned by the system in order to be implemented in the behavior prediction application, or they can be manually input by the driver, [0043] the prediction consists of selecting these waypoints having higher probability P(Rx) and considering their driving routes Rx as the probable intention of the driver, and [0049] a time of day, a day of the week, a season improve the accuracy of the prediction of the driver intention and the prediction of the tracks).
Thus, Konig discloses method for determining a route taken by a user at a decision point in a navigable network and Vigild teaches method for predicting travel of a vehicle includes determining a prediction starting location and a plurality of prediction destinations.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Konig with prediction method for improving the optimization of the behavior of a drive system of a motor vehicle as taught by Vigild, with a reasonable expectation of success, to a production of an array of possible destinations WPx of a driver not as driving final destinations, but rather as driving horizons H(WPx), which enable planning of control strategies for drive systems of motor vehicles (0015).
As per Claim 28,
Konig does not disclose,
wherein the first quantity of destinations of the first quantity of navigation data includes one or more destinations of routes driven by the vehicle depending at least in part on a current position of the vehicle or a current direction of travel of the vehicle
Vigild teaches,
wherein the first quantity of destinations of the first quantity of navigation data includes one or more destinations of routes driven by the vehicle depending at least in part on a current position of the vehicle or a current direction of travel of the vehicle (see at least [0049] The result of the method, i.e., the prediction of the driver intention in the form of driving routes, enables the production of drive tracks for planning control strategies. By extracting the items of information from the database along a predicted driving route, it is possible to prepare tracks for emissions, fuel/power consumption, and velocity (relevant for the functionality of the exhaust gas post treatment). At the same time, it is possible by the replication of the database to achieve a granularity of the data. For example, a time of day, a day of the week, a season improve the accuracy of the prediction of the driver intention and the prediction of the tracks).
Thus, Konig discloses method for determining a route taken by a user at a decision point in a navigable network and Vigild teaches method for predicting travel of a vehicle includes determining a prediction starting location and a plurality of prediction destinations.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Konig with prediction method for improving the optimization of the behavior of a drive system of a motor vehicle as taught by Vigild, with a reasonable expectation of success, to a production of an array of possible destinations WPx of a driver not as driving final destinations, but rather as driving horizons H(WPx), which enable planning of control strategies for drive systems of motor vehicles (0015).
As per Claim 33,
Konig discloses,
receiving from the vehicle a first request message to request a first quantity of navigation data by the backend server; (see at least [0043] Of course, the steps of the method of the present invention in any of its aspects or embodiments may be carried out in part by a server and in part by a navigation apparatus. 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. The steps of the method may be performed exclusively on a server, or some on a server and the others on a navigation device in any combination, or exclusively on a navigation device)
reducing a number of decision points of the first quantity of decision points by the backend server; and (see at least [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 and [0083] 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
transmitting the first quantity of navigation data including the reduced first quantity of decision points and the first quantity of destinations from the backend server to the vehicle in response to the first request message (see at least [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.)
Konig does not disclose,
determining a first quantity of destinations of the first quantity of navigation data by the backend server;
determining a first quantity of decision points of the first quantity of navigation data by the backend server
reducing a number of decision points of the first quantity of decision points by the backend server
Vigild teaches,
determining a first quantity of destinations of the first quantity of navigation data by the backend server; (see at least [Claim 1] determining a prediction starting location and a plurality of prediction destinations, the destinations including a plurality of possible intersections, one per destination, obtained based on map data, within a boundary at a predefined distance from the starting location, and [ Claim 1] determining, for each destination, at least one route to the destination, resulting in a plurality of routes at least one of which corresponds to each destination)
determining a first quantity of decision points of the first quantity of navigation data by the backend server (see at least [Claim 1] for each intersection along a potential route between the starting location and a first destination, determining a statistical likelihood of the vehicle remaining on an intersection-exit that is along the potential route, wherein the likelihood is determined based at least on the likelihood that a vehicle will be on the potential route leading into the intersection and based on data indicating intersection-exits chosen by a plurality of vehicles)
reducing a number of decision points of the first quantity of decision points by the backend server (see at least [Claim 1] selecting, from a plurality of potential routes to each destination, at least one route to each destination with the highest statistical likelihood, represented by an aggregate statistical likelihood that the vehicle remains on the potential route when passing through all intersections along the route)
Thus, Konig discloses method for determining a route taken by a user at a decision point in a navigable network and Vigild teaches method for predicting travel of a vehicle includes determining a prediction starting location and a plurality of prediction destinations.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Konig with prediction method for improving the optimization of the behavior of a drive system of a motor vehicle as taught by Vigild, with a reasonable expectation of success, to a production of an array of possible destinations WPx of a driver not as driving final destinations, but rather as driving horizons H(WPx), which enable planning of control strategies for drive systems of motor vehicles (0015).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konig in view of Roland Kane et. al. US20010049581 (“Kane”).
As per Claim 21,
Konig does not disclose,
wherein a decision point is a waypoint of multiple routes driven by the vehicle, at which the multiple routes driven by the vehicle branch off to different destinations.
Kane teaches,
wherein a decision point is a waypoint of multiple routes driven by the vehicle, at which the multiple routes driven by the vehicle branch off to different destinations (see at least [0025] 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, and [0035] 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).
Thus, Konig discloses method for determining a route taken by a user at a decision point in a navigable network and Kane teaches method of creating a navigation database including generating a navigation point, generating a segment between two navigation points, generating a path segment from a group of path segments, and generating a path from a list of path segments.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Konig with navigation planning as taught by Kane, with a reasonable expectation of success, to allows for a level of tolerance in determining whether the vehicle has entered or departed a navigation point (Kane [0035]).
As per Claim 22,
Konig does not disclose,
wherein a radius of the first specified circle is smaller than a radius of the second specified circle.
Kane teaches,
wherein a radius of the first specified circle is smaller than a radius of the second specified circle (see at least [0035] 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.
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).
Thus, Konig discloses method for determining a route taken by a user at a decision point in a navigable network and Kane teaches method of creating a navigation database including generating a navigation point, generating a segment between two navigation points, generating a path segment from a group of path segments, and generating a path from a list of path segments.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Konig with navigation planning as taught by Kane, with a reasonable expectation of success, to allows for a level of tolerance in determining whether the vehicle has entered or departed a navigation point (Kane [0035]).
As per Claim 23,
Konig does not disclose,
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 first quantity of decision points from the backend server.
Kane teaches,
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 first quantity of decision points from the backend server. (see at least [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]).
Thus, Konig discloses method for determining a route taken by a user at a decision point in a navigable network and Kane teaches method of creating a navigation database including generating a navigation point, generating a segment between two navigation points, generating a path segment from a group of path segments, and generating a path from a list of path segments.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Konig with navigation planning as taught by Kane, with a reasonable expectation of success, to allows for a level of tolerance in determining whether the vehicle has entered or departed a navigation point (Kane [0035]).
As per Claim 24,
Konig does not disclose,
wherein the vehicle receives a radius of the first specified circle and a radius of the second specified circle for each decision point with the first quantity of decision points from the backend server.
Kane teaches,
wherein the vehicle receives a radius of the first specified circle and a radius of the second specified circle for each decision point with the first quantity of decision points from the backend server. (see at least “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]).
Thus, Konig discloses method for determining a route taken by a user at a decision point in a navigable network and Kane teaches method of creating a navigation database including generating a navigation point, generating a segment between two navigation points, generating a path segment from a group of path segments, and generating a path from a list of path segments.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Konig with navigation planning as taught by Kane, with a reasonable expectation of success, to allows for a level of tolerance in determining whether the vehicle has entered or departed a navigation point (Kane [0035]).
Claims 26 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konig in view of Kane as applied to Claim 25 and 33 above, and further in view of Liu Zhiquan CN113269670A (“Zhiquan”).
As per Claim 26 and 34,
Konig discloses,
wherein reducing the number of decision points of the first quantity of decision points includes at least one of the group consisting of:
filtering the first quantity of decision points depending on an importance of the decision points (see at least [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, [0083] 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, [0084] the method may be carried out in relation to only significant decision points, at which it is desired to provide users with alternative options).
determining a specified maximum number of decision points for the first quantity of decision points depending on the distance of the decision point from the vehicle (see at least [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.)
Konig does not disclose,
merging decision points that lie within a specified radius or multiple specified radii of circles around a position of the decision point
Zhiquan teaches
merging decision points that lie within a specified radius or multiple specified radii of circles around a position of the decision point ( see at least [Claim 1] determining waypoints of a route to be rendered, and determining adjacent waypoints of each waypoint by taking each waypoint as a center and taking a preset distance as a radius;
dividing all waypoints into at least one waypoint set according to the adjacent waypoints of each waypoint;
clustering the waypoints in each waypoint set respectively to obtain the center of each waypoint set, and taking the center of each waypoint set as the combined waypoint of all waypoints in the corresponding waypoint set;
merging routes of waypoints in the same waypoint set to obtain a merged route)
Thus, Konig discloses method for determining a route taken by a user at a decision point in a navigable network and Zhiquan teaches a merging and rendering method for adjacent waypoints.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Konig with waypoint merging method as taught by Zhiquan, with a reasonable expectation of success, to merge routes of waypoints in the same waypoint set to obtain a merged route and rendering a navigation map according to the merged waypoint and the merged route ( [Claim 1]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants should take note of the prior art in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHUTOSH PANDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6269. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00am -5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 5712721516. 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.
/A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668