DETAILED ACTION
This non-final action is in response to the Application filed 19 September 2024.
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 .
Priority
Claims 1-14 are pending having a filing date of 19 September 2024 and claiming a domestic benefit as a continuation of U.S. Patent Application Number 17/122,902, filed 15 December 2020, now U.S. Patent Number 12,123,727.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 19 September 2024, complies with 35 C.F.R 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of the 1449 form is enclosed herewith.
Drawings
The drawing, filed 19 September 2024, as accepted by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2 and 6 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,727.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,727.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,727.
Claims 8, 9 and 13 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,727.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,727.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 and 44 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,727.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention of the current case would be invented with the claim limitations of the issued patent. The claims are no patentably distinct and would not result in two separate inventions. The intention of the current application would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention because the claim limitations of the instant case would not be distinguished over the claimed of the issued patent and when properly construed, define the same invention
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
• STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
• STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
o STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
o STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
o STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1 and 8 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter as shown below.
STEP 1: Do claims 1 and 8 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes, because claim 1 is directed toward a method of claim 8 is directed toward a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium, both of which fall within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Are the claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, claims 1 and 8 are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
1. Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
2. Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
3. Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
As per claims 1 and 8, the system and tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium are mental processes that can be performed in the mind and, therefore, are abstract ideas. In particular, claims 1 and 8 recite the abstract ideas of:
“generating a safety value for the travel route based on one or more safety conditions associated with the travel route”;
“generating a severity score associated with the one or more safety preferences of the user based on a relevancy of the one or more safety preferences to the travel route”;
“quantifying a risk aversion value for the user based on the severity score associated with the one or more safety preferences of the user”;
“comparing the risk aversion value for the user to the safety value for the travel route”;
“determining the risk aversion value exceeds the safety value for the travel route”; and
“generating a modified travel route to increase the safety value for the travel route above the risk aversion value for the user ... .”
These recitations merely consist of generating a safety value for a travel route, generating a severity score associated with the user safety preferences, quantifying a risk aversion value for the user, comparing the risk aversion value for the user to the safety value for the travel route, determining if the risk aversion value exceeds the safety value and generating a modified travel route to increase the safety value. This is equivalent to a person generating a safety value for a travel route, generating a severity score associated with the user safety preferences, quantifying a risk aversion value for the user, comparing the risk aversion value for the user to the safety value for the travel route, determining if the risk aversion value exceeds the safety value and generating a modified travel route to increase the safety value. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person, mentally generates a safety value for a travel route, generates a severity score associated with the user safety preferences, quantifies a risk aversion value for the user, compares the risk aversion value for the user to the safety value for the travel route, determines if the risk aversion value exceeds the safety value and generates a modified travel route to increase the safety value. The mere nominal recitations that generating, quantifying, comparing and determining are executed by “a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions encoded” (claim 11), does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
• an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
• an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
• an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1 and 8 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into practical application. Claims 1 and 8 further recite the additional element of”
“receive a request for a travel route from a user device associated with a user”, and
“update the user device to display the modified travel route.” These additional elements further limits the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or significantly more. In particular, the “receiv[ing] a request for travel, and update[ing] the user device to display” steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of travel request and the routing) and amount to mere data gathering, a form of insignificant extra-solution activity added to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g), because the steps characterize pre solution activity, such as an individual inputting the travel request and post solution activity of displaying the routing.
Claim 11 still further includes the additional element ““a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions encoded”. This element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it fails to integrate the exception into practical application. The mere inclusion of instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the system accomplishes the receiving and updating by ““a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions encoded” (claim 11)”, i.e. via computers. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated in the practical application. The “tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions encoded” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise metal judgements in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions encoded is recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the receiving and updating steps.
STEP 2B: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, claims 1 and 8 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
• adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1 and 8 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Receiving and displaying data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by servers, such as servers, cloud servers, computers operating on data such as recited in claims 1 and 8. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the receiving and updating activities of the system are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. 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 performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
Thus, since claims 1 and 8 are: (a) directed toward abstract ideas; (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application; and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 8 are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-7, and 9-14 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, the additional elements in claims 2-6 and 9-13 are further limitations that under their broadest reasonable interpretation are abstract using the analysis for independent claim 1. Further, the additional elements in claims 7 and 14 are further limitations that under their broadest reasonable interpretations are limitations that are further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or significantly more.
As such, claims 1-14, are rejected as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0171521 to Ramirez et al. (Hereafter Ramirez) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0407690 to Locke et al. (hereafter Locke).
As per claim 1, Ramirez discloses [a] method (see at least Ramirez, Abstract) comprising:
receiving a request for a travel route from a user device associated with a user (see at least Ramirez, [0054] disclosing that a personal navigation device 110 may receive (in step 402, Fig. 4) travel route information),
the request including at least a destination location and one or more safety preferences of the user (see at least Ramirez, [0054] disclosing that (in step 402, Fig. 4) the travel route information may include, but is not limited to, a start location, end location, road-by-road directions, and/or turn-by-turn directions; [0097] disclosing that before the driver starts driving <current location interpreted as the origin>, they may enter their intended destination ( or their probable or expected destination could be predicted) into a computing device (e.g., mobile device, on-board vehicle computing device, or the like) which then obtains travel time and risk estimates for a number of potential road segments to be traveled upon);
generating a safety value for the travel route based on one or more safety conditions associated with the travel route (see at least Ramirez, see Fig. 6, showing road segment safety rating system 600; [0078]; [0080] disclosing that road segment safety rating system 600 may include a road segment safety rating module 602. The road segment safety rating module 602 may receive data from one or more data stores, such as data stores 604 and 606, and may determine a safety rating for one or more road segments. In some examples, the safety rating of the road segment may correspond to a risk value of the road segment, as described herein. In other examples, the safety rating of the road segment may be a different value determined as described herein. In some examples, a road segment may be some or all of a particular road. As discussed above, the road segments may have varying lengths or distances, may be formed of various materials, may include various types of roads ( e.g., highway, country road, etc.)) ... (1) ... ; ... (2) ... ; ... (3) ... ; ... (4) ... ; ... (5) ... ; and ... (6) ... . But, Ramirez does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Locke:
(1) generating a severity score associated with the one or more safety preferences of the user based on a relevancy of the one or more safety preferences to the travel route (see at least Locke, [0124]; [0150]; [0152] disclosing that the travel application 124 can generate multiple different travel routes from a travel plan of a user indicating an originating location and one or more travel destinations. The travel application 124 can score each route with an infection route risk score indicating the level of risk that a user experiences when traveling on the route. The infection route risk score can indicate infection risk levels associated with each travel route and/or personal risk data associated with the user);
(2) quantifying a risk aversion value for the user based on the severity score associated with the one or more safety preferences of the user (see at least Locke, [0124]; [0150]; [0152]);
(3) comparing the risk aversion value for the user to the safety value for the travel route (see at least Locke, [0152]);
(4) determining the risk aversion value exceeds the safety value for the travel route (see at least Locke, [0152]);
(5) generating a modified travel route to increase the safety value for the travel route above the risk aversion value for the user (see at least Locke, [0152] disclosing that the travel application 124 can generate multiple different travel routes from a travel plan of a user indicating an originating location and one or more travel destinations. The travel application 124 can score each route with an infection route risk score indicating the level of risk that a user experiences when traveling on the route.); and
(6) updating the user device to display the modified travel route (see at least Locke, [0103] disclosing that because the system can cause user interfaces to display indicators such as the evolving risk and the suggested updates to the travel itinerary, a user can easily understand what actions the user can take to reduce the infection risk that the user is exposed to during their trip; [0116]; [0125] disclosing that the travel application 124 could generate a suggested alternative restaurant for the user to dine in and cause a user interface of a user device to display the suggestion to be accepted or rejected by the user via one or more accept or reject interface elements displayed on the user interface; [0149] he travel application 124 generates an infection travel risk score. The infection travel risk score can be displayed to a user via the user device 210 to provide a user with an indication of their travel risk. The infection travel risk score can be a value, level, or other indicator that indicates a risk associated with catching a disease.).
Ramirez and Locke are analogous art to claim 1 because they are in the same field of safe travel route generation. Ramirez relates to methods, computer-readable media, systems and apparatuses for determining a safest road segment for traveling between a first location and a second location (see at least Ramirez, Abstract). Locke relates to a risk analysis system for disease related risks (see at least Locke, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have
modified the method, as disclosed in Ramirez to include the benefit of
(1) generating a severity score associated with the one or more safety preferences of the user based on a relevancy of the one or more safety preferences to the travel route, (2) quantifying a risk aversion value for the user based on the severity score associated with the one or more safety preferences of the user, (3) comparing the risk aversion value for the user to the safety value for the travel route, (4) determining the risk aversion value exceeds the safety value for the travel route, (5) generating a modified travel route to increase the safety value for the travel route above the risk aversion value for the user, and (6) updating the user device to display the modified travel route, as disclosed in Locke, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of considering conditions that restrict the ability of a healthy person from contracting a disease or an infection (see at least Locke, [0003]).
As per claim 3, the combination of Ramirez and Locke discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Ramirez further discloses the following limitations:
segmenting the travel route into one or more route segments (see at least Ramirez, [0054] disclosing that the personal navigation device 110 may use the travel route information and mapping software to determine the road segment upon which the vehicle will travel, and retrieve (in step 404) the risk value for that road segment); and
generating a corresponding route safety value for each of the one or more route segments based on the one or more safety conditions associated with each of the one or more route segments (see at least Ramirez, [0054] disclosing that for each subsequent road segment remaining in the travel route (see step 406, Fig. 4), the personal navigation device 110 may access the database of risk values to retrieve (in step 404) the risk value for that road segment. The database of risk values may be stored locally to the personal navigation device 110, or may be stored remotely and accessed through a wired/wireless link to the data store; [0055]).
As per claim 4, the combination of Ramirez and Locke discloses all of the limitations of claim 3, as shown above. Locke further discloses the following limitation:
comparing the risk aversion value for the user to each of the corresponding route safety values for the one or more route segments (see at least Locke, [0152]);
determining one or more modified route segments based on the risk aversion value exceeding the corresponding route safety values for the one or more route segments (see at least Locke, [0152]); and
updating the travel route to include the one or more modified route segments (see at least Locke, [0103; [0116]; [0125]; [0149]).
As per claim 5, the combination of Ramirez and Locke discloses all of the limitations of claim 4, as shown above. Ramirez further discloses the following limitation:
updating the user device to display the travel route including the one or more modified route segments (see at least Ramirez, Fig. 21, showing safer travel route; [0190] disclosing that the overview screen also indicates a total reward time earned and an indication that a safer route is available. FIGS. 20-22 show graphical representations of one or more routes on a map including the current route and the route that had been indicated as being safer. FIG. 23 shows an illustrative user interface screen that displays reasoning as to why the route was determined to be safer. In some cases, the road segment safety rating system 1416, 1436 and/or 1452 may be configured to generate directions for a return route, as shown in FIG. 24).
As per claim 6, the combination of Ramirez and Locke discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Ramirez further discloses the following limitation:
displaying both the travel route and the modified travel route on the user device (see at least Ramirez, Fig. 21, showing safer travel route; [0190]).
As per claim 7, the combination of Ramirez and Locke discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Ramirez further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the one or more safety conditions associated with the travel route include at least one of historic crime data, road type, quality of a road surface, weather data, accident reporting data, and new alerts of events occurring in an area of the travel route (see at least Ramirez, [0037] disclosing that the data sources 104, 106 may provide information to the computing device 102. Some examples of providers of data sources in accordance with aspects of the invention include, but are not limited to, insurance companies, third-party insurance data providers, government entities, state highway patrol departments, local law enforcement agencies, state departments of transportation, federal transportation agencies, traffic information services, road hazard information sources, construction information sources, weather information services, geographic information services, vehicle manufacturers, vehicle safety organizations, and environmental information service; [0064]; [0067]; [0068]).
As per claim 8, similar to claim 1, Ramirez discloses [a] tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions encoded thereon (see at least Ramirez, [00052] disclosing a computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions for performing the steps depicted in FIGS. 2 and 3 and/or described in the present disclosure is contemplated. The computer-executable instructions may be configured for execution by a processor (e.g., processor 114 in computing device 102) and stored in a memory (e.g., memory 116 in computing device 102). Furthermore, as explained earlier, the computer-readable medium may be embodied in a non-volatile memory (e.g., in a memory in personal navigation device 110) or portable media (e.g., CD-ROM, DVD-ROM, USB flash, etc. connected to personal computing device 108); [0150]; claim 1), the instructions, when executed by a processor, are operable to:
receive a request for a travel route from a user device associated with a user (see at least Ramirez, [0054]),
the request including at least a destination location and one or more safety preferences of the user (see at least Ramirez, [0054]);
generate a safety value for the travel route based on one or more safety conditions associated with the travel route (see at least Ramirez, see Fig. 6, showing road segment safety rating system 600; [0078]; [0080]) ... (1) ... ; ... (2) ... ; ... (3) ... ; ... (4) ... ; ... (5) ... ; and ... (6) ... . But, Ramirez does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Locke:
(1) generate a severity score associated with the one or more safety preferences of the user based on a relevancy of the one or more safety preferences to the travel route (see at least Locke, [0124]; [0150]; [0152]);
(2) quantify a risk aversion value for the user based on the severity score associated with the one or more safety preferences of the user (see at least Locke, [0124]; [0150]; [0152]);
(3) compare the risk aversion value for the user to the safety value for the travel route (see at least Locke, [0152]);
(4) determine the risk aversion value exceeds the safety value for the travel route (see at least Locke, [0152]);
(5) generate a modified travel route to increase the safety value for the travel route above the risk aversion value for the user (see at least Locke, [0152]); and
(6) updating the user device to display the modified travel route (see at least Locke, [0103]; [0116]; [0125]).
Ramirez and Locke are analogous art to claim 8 because they are in the same field of safe travel route generation. Ramirez relates to methods, computer-readable media, systems and apparatuses for determining a safest road segment for traveling between a first location and a second location (see at least Ramirez, Abstract). Locke relates to a risk analysis system for disease related risks (see at least Locke, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have
modified the method, as disclosed in Ramirez to include the benefit of
(1) generating a severity score associated with the one or more safety preferences of the user based on a relevancy of the one or more safety preferences to the travel route, (2) quantifying a risk aversion value for the user based on the severity score associated with the one or more safety preferences of the user, (3) comparing the risk aversion value for the user to the safety value for the travel route, (4) determining the risk aversion value exceeds the safety value for the travel route, (5) generating a modified travel route to increase the safety value for the travel route above the risk aversion value for the user, and (6) updating the user device to display the modified travel route, as disclosed in Locke, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of considering conditions that restrict the ability of a healthy person from contracting a disease or an infection (see at least Locke, [0003]).
As per claim 10, similar to claim 3, the combination of Ramirez and Locke discloses all of the limitations of claim 8, as shown above. Ramirez further discloses the following limitations:
segment the travel route into one or more route segments (see at least Ramirez, [0054]); and
generate a corresponding route safety value for each of the one or more route segments based on the one or more safety conditions associated with each of the one or more route segments (see at least Ramirez, [0054]; [0055]).
As per claim 11, similar to claim 4, the combination of Ramirez and Locke discloses all of the limitations of claim 10, as shown above. Locke further discloses the following limitation:
compare the risk aversion value for the user to each of the corresponding route safety values for the one or more route segments (see at least Locke, [0152]);
determine one or more modified route segments based on the risk aversion value exceeding the corresponding route safety values for the one or more route segments (see at least Locke, [0152]); and
update the travel route to include the one or more modified route segments (see at least Locke, [0103; [0116]; [0125]; [0149]).
As per claim 12, similar to claim 5, the combination of Ramirez and Locke discloses all of the limitations of claim 11, as shown above. Ramirez further discloses the following limitation:
update the user device to display the travel route including the one or more modified route segments (see at least Ramirez, Fig. 21, showing safer travel route; [0190]).
As per claim 13, similar to claim 6, the combination of Ramirez and Locke discloses all of the limitations of claim 8, as shown above. Ramirez further discloses the following limitation:
display both the travel route and the modified travel route on the user device (see at least Ramirez, Fig. 21, showing safer travel route; [0190]).
As per claim 14, similar to claim 7, the combination of Ramirez and Locke discloses all of the limitations of claim 8, as shown above. Ramirez further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the one or more safety conditions associated with the travel route include at least one of historic crime data, road type, quality of a road surface, weather data, accident reporting data, and new alerts of events occurring in an area of the travel route (see at least Ramirez, [0037]; [0064]; [0067]; [0068]).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez and Locke as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0215496 to Sese et al. (hereafter Sese).
As per claim 2, the combination of Ramirez and Locke discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Ramirez nor Locke explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Sese:
generating a route safety score for each of the one or more safety conditions associated with the travel route based on a severity of each of the one or more safety conditions (see at least Sese, [0014] disclosing that FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary method for comparing the purpose of the activity and the set of user preferences with route attributes of a set of route candidates according to some embodiments. As illustrated in FIG. 4, the route attributes 402 are categorized into attribute categories 401 (301). ... Further disclosing that when a route attribute 402 is further defined with an attribute value 403 (see FIG. 4) <interpreted as severity>, an additional correlation with the user preference can be defined. For example, when the correlation with the Safety 502 user preference includes “Wild animal activity: Some” 541, the Safety 502 user preference can be further defined as “Neutral/Comfort” 508 when this route attribute has an attribute value of “Small” 542. Similarly, when the Safety 502 user preference includes the “Settings: Urban” 543, the Safety 502 user preference can be further defined as “Neutral/Comfort” 508 when this route attribute has an attribute value of “Park” 544. Using such user preference and route attribute category correlations, the route generation application 102 compares the user preferences the route request with the route attributes for each route candidate (303)); and
quantifying the safety value for the travel route based on the route safety score for each of the one or more safety conditions (see at least Sese, [0014] disclosing that the route generation application 102 scores the route candidates based on the comparison (304). In some embodiments, the scoring is calculated by counting the number of route attributes (e.g. 510, 520, 530, 540) that match each user preference value (e.g. 501, 502, 503)).
Ramirez, Locke and Sese are analogous art to claim 2 because they are in the same field of safe travel route generation. Ramirez relates to methods, computer-readable media, systems and apparatuses for determining a safest road segment for traveling between a first location and a second location (see at least Ramirez, Abstract). Locke relates to a risk analysis system for disease related risks (see at least Locke, [0002]). Sese relates to a method for route generation including a route request including an activity to be performed during a route traversal, a purpose of the activity, and a user identifier associated with a user of the user device, obtaining a set of user preferences associated with the user identifier from a user profiles database, and identifying a set of route candidates with route attributes matching the activity, the purpose of the activity, and at least one of the user preferences (see at least Sese, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have
modified the method, as disclosed in Ramirez, as modified by Locke, to include the benefit of generating a route safety score for each of the one or more safety conditions associated with the travel route based on a severity of each of the one or more safety conditions and quantifying the safety value for the travel route based on the route safety score for each of the one or more safety conditions, as disclosed in Sese, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of providing the route that satisfies the user preferences (see at least Sese, [0003]).
As per claim 9, similar to claim 2, the combination of Ramirez and Locke discloses all of the limitations of claim 8, as shown above. But, neither Ramirez nor Locke explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Sese:
generate a route safety score for each of the one or more safety conditions associated with the travel route based on a severity of each of the one or more safety conditions (see at least Sese, [0014]); and
quantify the safety value for the travel route based on the route safety score for each of the one or more safety conditions (see at least Sese, [0014]).
Ramirez, Locke and Sese are analogous art to claim 9 because they are in the same field of safe travel route generation. Ramirez relates to methods, computer-readable media, systems and apparatuses for determining a safest road segment for traveling between a first location and a second location (see at least Ramirez, Abstract). Locke relates to a risk analysis system for disease related risks (see at least Locke, [0002]). Sese relates to a method for route generation including a route request including an activity to be performed during a route traversal, a purpose of the activity, and a user identifier associated with a user of the user device, obtaining a set of user preferences associated with the user identifier from a user profiles database, and identifying a set of route candidates with route attributes matching the activity, the purpose of the activity, and at least one of the user preferences (see at least Sese, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have
modified the method, as disclosed in Ramirez, as modified by Locke, to include the benefit of generating a route safety score for each of the one or more safety conditions associated with the travel route based on a severity of each of the one or more safety conditions and quantifying the safety value for the travel route based on the route safety score for each of the one or more safety conditions, as disclosed in Sese, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of providing the route that satisfies the user preferences (see at least Sese, [0003]).
Conclusion
The following prior art are made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0003569 to Polanowski, disclosing that upon a negative determination that the destination safety rating does not meet or exceed the minimum safety threshold (i.e., that the destination is determined to be less safe than the user-defined preference for safety as indicated by the minimum safety threshold), the process 400 proceeds to operation 408 at [0125];
U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0164792 to Pal et al. (hereafter Pal), disclosing user preferences at [0059], and risk scores associated with a segment or route at [0138];
U.S. Patent Publication Number 2025/0259244 to Chintakindi, disclosing the navigation system 100 determines a superior, or optimal, path between the alternative paths based on the path safety indexes calculated in the step at the block 220. Specifically, for example, the optimal path may be the alternative path with the maximum value in all of the path safety indexes, whereby the maximum value may indicate the path with the least amount of safety concerns, at [0049]
U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0333150 to Shantharam, disclosing a plurality of navigation routes between the source station and the destination station, analyzing, at the application server, each of the plurality of navigation routes to compute a safety index associated with each of the plurality of navigation routes, at Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5;30 pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/PATRICK M BRADY/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666