CTNF 18/929,110 CTNF 94703 DETAILED ACTION Introduction Claims 1-10, 19, and 20 have been examined in this application. Claims 1-10, 19, and 20 are original. Claims 11-18 are withdrawn. This is the First Action On the Merits (FAOM) in response to Applicant’s response (filed 4/27/2026) to the Requirement for Restriction / Election (mailed 4/22/2026). The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Office Action Formatting The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action: • [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source; • [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source; • [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source; • 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source; • 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source; • 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source; • 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source; • p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source; • ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and • BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/5/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. Election/Restrictions 08-06 AIA Claim s 11-18 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/27/2026 . Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1, 3, 4, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: In Claims 1 and 19, "replacing, in the route" should instead read "replacing, in the route from the route origin to the route destination" for clarity. Claim 3 should end with a period. In Claim 4, "GPS recordings" should instead read "recordings" as the second GPS is redundant . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitations are: (a) “a navigation service” which generates a route, in Claim 1, (b) “a private roads repository” storing road data, in Claim 19, (c) “a navigation service” which executes on a computer processor and performs the recited operations, in Claim 19. The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholders “service” or “repository” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: (a) specification ¶0031 and ¶0190-0194 state that the “navigation service” is implemented by computer, e.g. a processor and algorithms corresponding to the functions, (b) specification ¶0031 and ¶0190-0194 state that the “ private roads repository” is a memory, (c) specification ¶0031 and ¶0190-0194 state that the “navigation service” is implemented by computer, e.g. a processor and algorithms corresponding to the functions, If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-8, 10, 19, and 20 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. Regarding Claims 1 and 19 , the limitation “identifying a ghost origin and a ghost destination of a ghost road along the route” renders the claims indefinite. Particularly, it is not clear what the “ghost origin,” “ghost destination,” and “ghost road” actually are, and whether the term “ghost” is merely a name for any points and road, or alternatively whether the term “ghost” imparts some specific limitation on the terms, for example what the data represents or must comprise or how it is designated. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the ghost road is interpreted as a proxy of a base road route, formed from one or more base roads stored in a base roads repository. Claims 1-8, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 1 (for Claims 1-8 and 10), or Claim 19 (for Claim 20), and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above. Examiner’s note: Claim 9 cures the deficiency and therefore is NOT rejected under this rationale. Regarding Claims 3, 4, and 7, the limitation “discarding ones of the plurality of recorded locations whose corresponding timestamps are outside of a pre-determined number of indices in the index” renders the claims indefinite. Particularly, it is not clear what it means for timestamps to be “outside of a pre-determined number of indices in the index” and whether this is referring to some maximum number of indices (such that any number over the maximum is discarded) or some specific range of numbers that identify indices, or an acceptable error range, or something else entirely. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, any discarding of ones of the plurality of recorded locations based on the timestamps is understood to read on the limitation. Claims 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 3 (for Claims 4 and 5), or Claim 7 (for Claim 8), and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above. Regarding Claim 6, the limitation of “ filtering the data by calculating distances between a corresponding intersection and global positioning system (GPS) points whose latitude and longitude values are within a pre-determined variance of a latitude and a longitude of a waypoint of the route” renders the claim indefinite. The limitation recites “the route,” however, Claim 1, from which Claim 6 depends, recites several routes including a route for navigating from a route origin to a route destination, a route from the ghost origin to the ghost destination, and an updated route comprising a plurality of segments. It is not clear whether “the route” in Claim 6 is intended to mean one of these route, or some different route. The scope of the filtering limitation and claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, any filtering by distance is understood to read on the limitation. Regarding Claim 10, the phrase "type of vehicle" renders the claim indefinite. The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite (see Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955) and MPEP 2173.05(b)). Particularly, it is unclear what "type" is intended to convey and how such "types" are distinguished or determined. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the phrase is interpreted as any categories of vehicles as defined by their physical size or configuration. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-8, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (101 Analysis - Step 1 - Statutory Category) Regarding Independent Claims 1 and 19, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of subject matter as the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. (101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I - Judicial Exception) Regarding Independent Claim 1, the claim recites a method comprising: generating , by a navigation service, a route for navigating from a route origin to a route destination using a private roads repository ; identifying a ghost origin and a ghost destination of a ghost road along the route; sending, using an application programming interface of a base roads engine, a first request for a route from the ghost origin to the ghost destination; receiving, from the base roads engine in response to the first request, a replacement section from the ghost origin to the ghost destination; replacing, in the route, the ghost road with the replacement section to create an updated route comprising a plurality of segments; generating an estimated travel time from the route origin to the route destination over the plurality of segments of the updated route; and presenting the estimated travel time. Independent Claim 19 recites the same functional limitations and also recites a private roads repository storing a plurality of private roads and a ghost road; and a navigation service, executing on a computer processor, operatively connected to the private roads repository and configured to perform the operations. The limitations indicated in BOLD above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are an abstract idea of a mental process, capable of being performed in a human mind or manually, using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Particularly, a human is capable of mentally or manually performing a method comprising: generating a route for navigating from a route origin to a route destination using private roads (for example a person deciding upon a route, using a memorized set or written map of available private roads), identifying a ghost origin and a ghost destination of a ghost road along the route (for example the person including in the generated route and recognizing a proxy type of road that represents base roads); replacing, in the route, the ghost road with the replacement section to create an updated route comprising a plurality of segments (for example using receives base roads to replace the ghost road, either mentally in the route or by drawing a new updated map); generating an estimated travel time from the route origin to the route destination over the plurality of segments of the updated route (for example summing known travel times or estimating using distance); and presenting the estimated travel time (for example writing the estimated travel time). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea. (101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II - Practical Application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitations indicated with underlining above are additional elements in the claim. That is, the additional elements in the claim are the generating performed by a navigation service (interpreted as a computer and algorithms under 112(f)), and use of a private roads repository (interpreted as memory under 112(f)) in Claim 1, the private roads repository storing a plurality of private roads and a ghost road; and navigation service (interpreted as a computer and algorithms under 112(f)), executing on a computer processor, operatively connected to the private roads repository and configured to perform the operations in Claim 19, and the functions of sending, using an application programming interface of a base roads engine, a first request for a route from the ghost origin to the ghost destination; and receiving, from the base roads engine in response to the first request, a replacement section from the ghost origin to the ghost destination, in Claims 1 and 19. For the generating performed by a navigation service, and use of a private roads repository in Claim 1, the private roads repository storing a plurality of private roads and a ghost road; and navigation service, executing on a computer processor, operatively connected to the private roads repository and configured to perform the operations in Claim 19, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, recited at a high level of generality. The claims do not provide an improvement in computer hardware or computing technology. Therefore, the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For the sending, using an application programming interface of a base roads engine, a first request for a route from the ghost origin to the ghost destination; and receiving, from the base roads engine in response to the first request, a replacement section from the ghost origin to the ghost destination, the sending and receiving and use of an API is recited broadly, without any particular technological details of the API. Therefore, the claim merely generally ties the abstract idea to the field of API requests, and does not limit the claim or abstract idea in a meaningful way. Therefore, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally, the ordered combination of steps of the method and claim as a whole are not determined to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the ordered combination merely recites a series of abstract ideas performed in a specific order (such as an order of operations or a multi-step mental process). (101 Analysis - Step 2B - Significantly More / Inventive Concept) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As above, the additional elements in the claim are the generating performed by a navigation service (interpreted as a computer and algorithms under 112(f)), and use of a private roads repository (interpreted as memory under 112(f)) in Claim 1, the private roads repository storing a plurality of private roads and a ghost road; and navigation service (interpreted as a computer and algorithms under 112(f)), executing on a computer processor, operatively connected to the private roads repository and configured to perform the operations in Claim 19, and the functions of sending, using an application programming interface of a base roads engine, a first request for a route from the ghost origin to the ghost destination; and receiving, from the base roads engine in response to the first request, a replacement section from the ghost origin to the ghost destination, in Claims 1 and 19. For the generating performed by a navigation service, and use of a private roads repository in Claim 1, the private roads repository storing a plurality of private roads and a ghost road; and navigation service, executing on a computer processor, operatively connected to the private roads repository and configured to perform the operations in Claim 19, for the same reasons as presented above, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, at a high level of generality, such that the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the functions using a generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see e.g. US20010002454A1 [0002]). For the sending, using an application programming interface of a base roads engine, a first request for a route from the ghost origin to the ghost destination; and receiving, from the base roads engine in response to the first request, a replacement section from the ghost origin to the ghost destination, for the same reasons as above, the sending and receiving and use of an API is recited broadly such that the claim merely generally ties the abstract idea to the field of API requests, and does not limit the claim or abstract idea in a meaningful way. This does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see e.g. US20010002454A1 [0002]). Additionally, the ordered combination of steps of the method and claim as a whole are not determined to amount to significantly more as the ordered combination merely recites a series of abstract ideas performed in a specific order (such as an order of operations or a multi-step mental process). Dependent Claims 2-8, 10, and 20 do not recite further limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites wherein a plurality of intersections connect the plurality of segments, and wherein the method further comprises: capturing, for each of the plurality of intersections from data comprising a total number of recorded locations of a plurality of vehicles, a plurality of recorded locations of the plurality of vehicles, wherein the plurality of recorded locations for a corresponding intersection is within a corresponding defined radius around the corresponding intersection, and wherein the corresponding defined radius is determined according to a combination of masses of the plurality of vehicles and corresponding speed limits over the plurality of segments. These limitations are further functions or details of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can mentally or manually consider road segments between intersections, and can capture locations that were previously recorded by vehicles (such as a person selecting data that corresponds to intersections by manually plotting on a map and drawing a radius to select the pertinent locations, wherein the radius was chosen based on some function of masses and speed limits). The claim does not introduce any new additional elements. Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites wherein a plurality of intersections connect the plurality of segments, and wherein the method further comprises: capturing, for each of the plurality of intersections from data comprising a total number of recorded locations of a plurality of vehicles, a plurality of recorded locations of the plurality of vehicles, wherein a plurality of timestamps are recorded for the plurality of recorded locations; indexing the plurality of recorded locations according to the plurality of timestamps to form an index; forming remaining recorded locations by discarding ones of the plurality of recorded locations whose corresponding timestamps are outside of a pre-determined number of indices in the index. These limitations are further functions or details of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can mentally or manually capture data, such as by selecting locations from a table or list, which were previously recorded by vehicles, form a new list/index of the selected locations, and discard by ignoring or crossing out any undesired locations. The claim does not introduce any new additional elements. Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites wherein, by discarding the ones of the plurality of recorded locations whose corresponding timestamps are outside of a pre-determined number of indices in the index, global positioning system (GPS) GPS recordings of a single vehicle on multiple trips through a single intersection are discarded. These limitations are further functions or details of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can mentally or manually discard locations indicative of redundant trips, and can evaluate GPS type location data. The claim does not introduce any new additional elements. Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites wherein the pre-determined number of indices are determined based on a frequency at which the plurality of recorded locations are recorded. These limitations are further functions or details of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can mentally or manually decide the number for discarding based on any given information, including frequency at which the plurality of recorded locations are recorded. The claim does not introduce any new additional elements. Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites wherein a plurality of intersections connect the plurality of segments, and wherein the method further comprises: capturing, for each of the plurality of intersections from data comprising a total number of recorded locations of a plurality of vehicles, a plurality of recorded locations of the plurality of vehicles; and filtering the data by calculating distances between a corresponding intersection and global positioning system (GPS) points whose latitude and longitude values are within a pre-determined variance of a latitude and a longitude of a waypoint of the route. These limitations are further functions or details of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can mentally or manually capture locations such as by selecting locations from a table or list of data that was originally recorded by vehicles, and can filter the data by evaluating GPS coordinates and comparing against route points (using distance calculations or by drawing on a map). The claim does not introduce any new additional elements. Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites wherein a plurality of intersections connect the plurality of segments, and wherein the method further comprises: capturing, for each of the plurality of intersections from data comprising a total number of recorded locations of a plurality of vehicles, a plurality of recorded locations of the plurality of vehicles, wherein the plurality of recorded locations for a corresponding intersection is within a corresponding defined radius around the corresponding intersection, and wherein a plurality of timestamps are recorded for the plurality of recorded locations; indexing the plurality of recorded locations according to the plurality of timestamps to form an index; forming remaining recorded locations by discarding ones of the plurality of recorded locations whose corresponding timestamps are outside of a pre-determined number of indices in the index; generating a corresponding average predicted travel time for each segment by, for each of the plurality of intersections, combining remaining timestamps for the remaining recorded locations; and generating the estimated travel time by combining the corresponding average predicted travel time for each segment. These limitations are further functions or details of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can mentally or manually capture locations such as by selecting locations from a table or list of data that was originally recorded by vehicles, associate the locations with intersections using a radius (by geometric calculation or drawing of a circle), indexing by listing the locations, discarding by ignoring or crossing out locations based on the stated criteria, comparing timestamps at different locations to estimate travel times, and generating an average. The claim does not introduce any new additional elements. Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites wherein generating a corresponding average predicted travel time for each segment by, for each of the plurality of intersections, combining remaining timestamps for the remaining recorded locations further comprises: using a mean and plus or minus half of a standard deviation of timestamps, recorded as an inverse Gaussian distribution, as a range of time required to traverse a corresponding segment, wherein the range of time comprises the corresponding average predicted travel time for each segment. These limitations are further functions or details of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can mentally or manually use statistical evaluation to generate a mean and half standard deviation of the timestamps, recorded as an inverse Gaussian distribution, as a range of time required to traverse a corresponding segment to generate the predicted average travel time. The claim does not introduce any new additional elements. Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites transforming a plurality of metadata describing a type of vehicle using the route into a vector data structure; predicting, by an unsupervised clustering machine learning model taking as input the vector data structure, a probability of delay for the type of vehicle; estimating a predicted delay from the probability of delay for the type of vehicle; and presenting the predicted delay together with the estimated travel time. The transforming of data predicting a probability of delay for the type of vehicle; estimating a predicted delay from the probability of delay for the type of vehicle; and presenting the predicted delay together with the estimated travel time are further functions of a mental process, as a person can transform text or numerical data, predict a delay probability and delay based on the type of vehicle (for example recognizing motorcycles are not as susceptible to delays based on ability to lane filter), and present such data (such as by written output). The use of “an unsupervised clustering machine learning model” represents an additional element in the claim, but is recited broadly such that the claim merely generally ties the abstract idea to the field of machine learning and does not limit the claim or abstract idea in a meaningful way. This does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see e.g. US-20140143251-A1 [0004]). Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites the system further comprises: a graph database storing a subset of the plurality of segments as edges and storing intersections between the plurality of segments as nodes, wherein at least some of the edges connect at least some of the nodes, and wherein the operations further comprise: determining, by combining data in the edges, the estimated travel time. The recitations that at least some of the edges connect at least some of the nodes, and wherein the operations further comprise: determining, by combining data in the edges, the estimated travel time are further functions or details of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can mentally or manually consider such data and determine the estimated travel time by combining data. The graph database represents an additional element in the claim but is a further recitation of a generic computer component and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reasons as recited above with respect to Claim 19. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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. 08-36 AIA Claim s 1, 3-7, 9, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim s 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,598,639 B2 in view of Patent U.S. 7,433,889 B1 (Barton) . Regarding Claims 1 and 9 (a method), and 19 (a system), Claims 1 (corresponding method) and Claim 9 (corresponding system) of U.S. Patent No. 11,598,639 B2 disclose all features of the claims except for the limitations: generating an estimated travel time from the route origin to the route destination over the plurality of segments of the updated route; and presenting the estimated travel time. Barton teaches a technique to output route data (see 6:1-5 route over segments) including: generating an estimated travel time from the route origin to the route destination over the plurality of segments of the complete route (see 6:25-27, travel times for each segment summed to provide estimated route travel time) ; and presenting the estimated travel time (see 6:30-35, output of estimated route travel time, and 6:54-57 output being audible/display, i.e. presenting to user) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the presenting of the route in U.S. Patent No. 11,598,639 B2 to additionally include travel time output, as taught by Barton, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the navigation service to provide additional information and improving accuracy of travel time estimation by considering of traffic sign data (see Barton 1:47-58, and 17:1-5). Regarding Claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 11,598,639 B2 does not recite the method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of intersections connect the plurality of segments, and wherein the method further comprises: capturing, for each of the plurality of intersections from data comprising a total number of recorded locations of a plurality of vehicles, a plurality of recorded locations of the plurality of vehicles, wherein a plurality of timestamps are recorded for the plurality of recorded locations; indexing the plurality of recorded locations according to the plurality of timestamps to form an index; forming remaining recorded locations by discarding ones of the plurality of recorded locations whose corresponding timestamps are outside of a pre- determined number of indices in the index; However, Barton teaches the technique as above, wherein a plurality of intersections connect the plurality of segments (see Figure 1) , and wherein the method further comprises: capturing, for each of the plurality of intersections (see 9:29-31, data collected “for each intersection”) from data comprising a total number of recorded locations (see 9:21-30, from data which includes the collected data as a whole) of a plurality of vehicles (see Figure 3, 4:48-59, e.g. navigation units in vehicles) , a plurality of recorded locations of the plurality of vehicles (see Claim 9 and 9:20-25, the collected and analyzed data including positions) , wherein a plurality of timestamps are recorded for the plurality of recorded locations (see and see Claim 9, the position data including a time stamp) ; indexing the plurality of recorded locations according to the plurality of timestamps to form an index (see 9:40-45, organizing data based on rush hour, i.e. according to the timestamp) ; forming remaining recorded locations by discarding ones of the plurality of recorded locations whose corresponding timestamps are outside of a pre-determined number of indices in the index (see 9:40-45, discarding the data based on the rush hour (outside the desired time range) (see also rejection and interpretation under 112(b))) ; The motivation to combine U.S. Patent No. 11,598,639 B2 and Barton was provided in the rejection of Claim 1. Regarding Claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 11,598,639 B2 does not recite the method of claim 3 wherein, by discarding the ones of the plurality of recorded locations whose corresponding timestamps are outside of a pre-determined number of indices in the index, global positioning system (GPS) GPS recordings of a single vehicle on multiple trips through a single intersection are discarded. However, Barton teaches the technique as above, wherein, by discarding the ones of the plurality of recorded locations whose corresponding timestamps are outside of a pre-determined number of indices in the index, global positioning system (GPS) GPS recordings (see 4:60-65 position data may be GPS data) of a single vehicle on multiple trips through a single intersection are discarded (see 9:30-47, for an intersection, discarding the data collected during rush hour, i.e. meeting the limitation (where merely recited an intended result) for the case where a vehicle makes one trip through an intersection during rush hour and one trip through the same intersection outside of rush hour) . The motivation to combine U.S. Patent No. 11,598,639 B2 and Barton was provided in the rejection of Claim 1. Regarding Claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 11,598,639 B2 does not recite the method of claim 3, wherein the pre-determined number of indices are determined based on a frequency at which the plurality of recorded locations are recorded. However, Barton teaches the technique as above, wherein the pre-determined number of indices are determined based on a frequency at which the plurality of recorded locations are recorded (see 9:35-47, the time constraint for the filtering (the pre-determined number of indices – see also the rejection and interpretation under 112(b)) determined based on the rush hour time of data collection, which collection (7:40-45) is further based on the position collection frequency of once per second) . The motivation to combine U.S. Patent No. 11,598,639 B2 and Barton was provided in the rejection of Claim 1. Regarding Claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 11,598,639 B2 does not recite the method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of intersections connect the plurality of segments, and wherein the method further comprises: capturing, for each of the plurality of intersections from data comprising a total number of recorded locations of a plurality of vehicles, a plurality of recorded locations of the plurality of vehicles; and filtering the data by calculating distances between a corresponding intersection and global positioning system (GPS) points whose latitude and longitude values are within a pre-determined variance of a latitude and a longitude of a waypoint of the route. However, Barton teaches the technique as above, wherein a plurality of intersections connect the plurality of segments (see Figure 1) , and wherein the method further comprises: capturing, for each of the plurality of intersections (see 9:29-31, data collected “for each intersection”) from data comprising a total number of recorded locations (see 9:21-30, from data which includes the collected data as a whole) of a plurality of vehicles (see Figure 3, 4:48-59, e.g. navigation units in vehicles) , a plurality of recorded locations of the plurality of vehicles (see Claim 9 and 9:20-25, the collected and analyzed data including positions) ; and filtering the data (see 8:4-17, filtering with filtering criteria) by calculating distances between a corresponding intersection and global positioning system (GPS) points (see 4:60-65 position data may be GPS data) whose latitude and longitude values are within a pre-determined variance of a latitude and a longitude of a waypoint of the route (see 8:24-25, filtering criteria being specified portions of road segments, such as near intersections, i.e. a distance to be considered “near” – see also the rejection and interpretation under 112(b), above) . The motivation to combine U.S. Patent No. 11,598,639 B2 and Barton was provided in the rejection of Claim 1. Regarding Claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 11,598,639 B2 does not recite the method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of intersections connect the plurality of segments, and wherein the method further comprises: capturing, for each of the plurality of intersections from data comprising a total number of recorded locations of a plurality of vehicles, a plurality of recorded locations of the plurality of vehicles, wherein the plurality of recorded locations for a corresponding intersection is within a corresponding defined radius around the corresponding intersection, and wherein a plurality of timestamps are recorded for the plurality of recorded locations; indexing the plurality of recorded locations according to the plurality of timestamps to form an index; forming remaining recorded locations by discarding ones of the plurality of recorded locations whose corresponding timestamps are outside of a pre- determined number of indices in the index; generating a corresponding average predicted travel time for each segment by, for each of the plurality of intersections, combining remaining timestamps for the remaining recorded locations; and generating the estimated travel time by combining the corresponding average predicted travel time for each segment. However, Barton teaches the technique as above, wherein a plurality of intersections connect the plurality of segments (see Figure 1) , and wherein the method further comprises: capturing, for each of the plurality of intersections (see 9:29-31, data collected “for each intersection”) from data comprising a total number of recorded locations (see 9:21-30, from data which includes the collected data as a whole) of a plurality of vehicles (see Figure 3, 4:48-59, e.g. navigation units in vehicles) , a plurality of recorded locations of the plurality of vehicles (see Claim 9 and 9:20-25, the collected and analyzed data including positions) , wherein the plurality of recorded locations for a corresponding intersection is within a corresponding defined radius around the corresponding intersection (see 8:20-25, position data filtered for that “near intersections,” i.e. meeting a distance criteria around the intersection / radius) , and wherein a plurality of timestamps are recorded for the plurality of recorded locations (see Claim 9, position data including time stamps) ; indexing the plurality of recorded locations according to the plurality of timestamps to form an index (see 9:40-45, further organizing data based on rush hour, i.e. according to the timestamp) ; forming remaining recorded locations by discarding ones of the plurality of recorded locations whose corresponding timestamps are outside of a pre-determined number of indices in the index (see 9:40-45, discarding the data based on the rush hour (outside the desired time range) (see also rejection and interpretation under 112(b))) ; generating a corresponding average predicted travel time for each segment by, for each of the plurality of intersections, combining remaining timestamps for the remaining recorded locations (see 9:35-45, using the position (time stamped) data to identify traffic signs and signals and 16:61 – 17:13, using the traffic sign data to determine travel time for road segments, along with delay or speed profile data which (12:15-20) is average speed) ; and generating the estimated travel time by combining the corresponding average predicted travel time for each segment (see 6:25-27, travel times for each segment summed to provide estimated route travel time) . The motivation to combine U.S. Patent No. 11,598,639 B2 and Barton was provided in the rejection of Claim 1. Regarding Claim 20, U.S. Patent No. 11,598,639 B2 does not recite the system of claim 19, wherein the system further comprises: a graph database storing a subset of the plurality of segments as edges and storing intersections between the plurality of segments as nodes, wherein at least some of the edges connect at least some of the nodes, and wherein the operations further comprise: determining, by combining data in the edges, the estimated travel time. However, Barton teaches the technique as above, wherein the system further comprises: a graph database storing a subset of the plurality of segments as edges and storing intersections between the plurality of segments as nodes, wherein at least some of the edges connect at least some of the nodes (see Figure 1) , and wherein the operations further comprise: determining, by combining data in the edges, the estimated travel time (see 6:25-27, travel times for each segment summed to provide estimated route travel time) . The motivation to combine U.S. Patent No. 11,598,639 B2 and Barton was provided in the rejection of Claim 1. Claims 1-10, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-9, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,130,152 B2. Although the claims are not identical, the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,130,152 B2 are narrower and therefore read on the claims of the instant application. The following table shows which claims correspond in the instant application and issued patent. 18/929,110(Instant Application)Claims: 10/28/2024 US 12,130,152 B2 Published (10/29/2024) 1, 10 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 19 18 20 19 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-7, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2009/0048776A1 (Bouillet et al.) in view of Published Application US2019/0234743A1 (Roy et al.), further in view of Patent U.S. 7,433,889 B1 (Barton) . Regarding Claim 1, Bouillet et al. discloses a method comprising: generating, by a navigation service (see [0020] software modules providing routing) , a route for navigating from a route origin to a route destination (see Figure 3, [0032] step 303, computing shortest path for SDO which [0030] specifies starting point and destination) using a roads repository (see [0032] using physical links, [0029] from map data) ; identifying a ghost origin and a ghost destination of a ghost road along the route (see [0032] the route including virtual links, which [0025] connect nodes (i.e. ghost / proxy road between ghost origin and destination)) ; sending, to a base roads engine (see [0033] routing algorithm using state/city roads) , a first request for a route from the ghost origin to the ghost destination (see [0033] finding corresponding physical connections [0029] in map data, i.e. a request sent to the routing algorithm) ; receiving, from the base roads engine in response to the first request, a replacement section from the ghost origin to the ghost destination (see [0033] obtaining the corresponding physical connections to the virtual connection) ; replacing, in the route, the ghost road with the replacement section to create an updated route comprising a plurality of segments (see [0033-0034] steps 306-310, replace virtual connections (ghost road) with corresponding physical connections (replacement section), resulting in updated route / end-to-end path) ; Bouillet et al. does not explicitly recite: using a private roads repository; and sending, using an application programming interface of a base roads engine, a first request. However, Roy et al. teaches a technique in navigation (see [0004]), using a private roads repository (see [00076-0077] determine route using indoor map, and see [0047, 0055] memory containing the application including facility database 24 which describes the indoor map, which [0041] may be a mine system, i.e. a type of private road) ; and sending, using an application programming interface of a base roads engine, a first request (see [0077] the sub-starting location and sub-destination may be sent to a third-party outdoor mapping service, and [0114] the mobile application 10 may be in communication with the outdoor service (e.g. Google maps – a base roads engine) via an API) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method combining physical and virtual links of Bouillet et al. to further be used with private and base roads and use an API as taught by Roy et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of further enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to apply to indoor environments while providing sufficient detail for all segments of a route (see Roy et al., [0003]). Bouillet et al. further discloses the maps including travel time data of connections (see [0025] travel time) and presenting of a route (see [0034] display) but does not explicitly recite: generating an estimated travel time from the route origin to the route destination over the plurality of segments of the updated route; and presenting the estimated travel time. However, Barton teaches a technique to output route data (see 6:1-5 route over segments) including: generating an estimated travel time from the route origin to the route destination over the plurality of segments of the complete route (see 6:25-27, travel times for each segment summed to provide estimated route travel time) ; and presenting the estimated travel time (see 6:30-35, output of estimated route travel time, and 6:54-57 output being audible/display, i.e. presenting to user) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the presenting of the route in Bouillet et al. to additionally include travel time output, as taught by Barton, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the navigation service to provide additional information and improving accuracy of travel time estimation by considering of traffic sign data (see Barton 1:47-58, and 17:1-5). Regarding Claim 3, Bouillet et al. further discloses wherein a plurality of intersections connect the plurality of segments, (see [0025] intersections/nodes with connections including physical links (segments) in between). Bouillet et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: capturing, for each of the plurality of intersections from data comprising a total number of recorded locations of a plurality of vehicles, a plurality of recorded locations of the plurality of vehicles, wherein a plurality of timestamps are recorded for the plurality of recorded locations; indexing the plurality of recorded locations according to the plurality of timestamps to form an index; forming remaining recorded locations by discarding ones of the plurality of recorded locations whose corresponding timestamps are outside of a pre-determined number of indices in the index; However, Barton teaches the technique as above, comprising: capturing, for each of the plurality of intersections (see 9:29-31, data collected “for each intersection”) from data comprising a total number of recorded locations (see 9:21-30, from data which includes the collected data as a whole) of a plurality of vehicles (see Figure 3, 4:48-59, e.g. navigation units in vehicles) , a plurality of recorded locations of the plurality of vehicles (see Claim 9 and 9:20-25, the collected and analyzed data including positions) , wherein a plurality of timestamps are recorded for the plurality of recorded locations (see and see Claim 9, the position data including a time stamp) ; indexing the plurality of recorded locations according to the plurality of timestamps to form an index (see 9:40-45, organizing data based on rush hour, i.e. according to the timestamp) ; forming remaining recorded locations by discarding ones of the plurality of recorded locations whose corresponding timestamps are outside of a pre-determined number of indices in the index (see 9:40-45, discarding the data based on the rush hour (outside the desired time range) (see also rejection and interpretation under 112(b))) ; The motivation to combine Bouillet et al. and Barton was provided in the rejection of Claim 1. Regarding Claim 4, Bouillet et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 3 wherein, by discarding the ones of the plurality of recorded locations whose corresponding timestamps are outside of a pre-determined number of indices in the index, global positioning system (GPS) GPS recordings of a single vehicle on multiple trips through a single intersection are discarded. However, Barton teaches the technique as above, wherein, by discarding the ones of the plurality of recorded locations whose corresponding timestamps are outside of a pre-determined number of indices in the index, global positioning system (GPS) GPS recordings (see 4:60-65 position data may be GPS data) of a single vehicle on multiple trips through a single intersection are discarded (see 9:30-47, for an intersection, discarding the data collected during rush hour, i.e. meeting the limitation (where merely recited an intended result) for the case where a vehicle makes one trip through an intersection during rush hour and one trip through the same intersection outside of rush hour) . The motivation to combine Bouillet et al. and Barton was provided in the rejection of Claim 1. Regarding Claim 5, Bouillet et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 3, wherein the pre-determined number of indices are determined based on a frequency at which the plurality of recorded locations are recorded. However, Barton teaches the technique as above, wherein the pre-determined number of indices are determined based on a frequency at which the plurality of recorded locations are recorded (see 9:35-47, the time constraint for the filtering (the pre-determined number of indices – see also the rejection and interpretation under 112(b)) determined based on the rush hour time of data collection, which collection (7:40-45) is further based on the position collection frequency of once per second) . The motivation to combine Bouillet et al. and Barton was provided in the rejection of Claim 1. Regarding Claim 6, Bouillet et al. further discloses wherein a plurality of intersections connect the plurality of segments, (see [0025] intersections/nodes with connections including physical links (segments) in between). Bouillet et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: capturing, for each of the plurality of intersections from data comprising a total number of recorded locations of a plurality of vehicles, a plurality of recorded locations of the plurality of vehicles; and filtering the data by calculating distances between a corresponding intersection and global positioning system (GPS) points whose latitude and longitude values are within a pre-determined variance of a latitude and a longitude of a waypoint of the route. However, Barton teaches the technique as above, comprising: capturing, for each of the plurality of intersections (see 9:29-31, data collected “for each intersection”) from data comprising a total number of recorded locations (see 9:21-30, from data which includes the collected data as a whole) of a plurality of vehicles (see Figure 3, 4:48-59, e.g. navigation units in vehicles) , a plurality of recorded locations of the plurality of vehicles (see Claim 9 and 9:20-25, the collected and analyzed data including positions) ; and filtering the data (see 8:4-17, filtering with filtering criteria) by calculating distances between a corresponding intersection and global positioning system (GPS) points (see 4:60-65 position data may be GPS data) whose latitude and longitude values are within a pre-determined variance of a latitude and a longitude of a waypoint of the route (see 8:24-25, filtering criteria being specified portions of road segments, such as near intersections, i.e. a distance to be considered “near” – see also the rejection and interpretation under 112(b), above) . The motivation to combine Bouillet et al. and Barton was provided in the rejection of Claim 1. Regarding Claim 7, Bouillet et al. further discloses wherein a plurality of intersections connect the plurality of segments, (see [0025] intersections/nodes with connections including physical links (segments) in between). Bouillet et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: capturing, for each of the plurality of intersections from data comprising a total number of recorded locations of a plurality of vehicles, a plurality of recorded locations of the plurality of vehicles, wherein the plurality of recorded locations for a corresponding intersection is within a corresponding defined radius around the corresponding intersection, and wherein a plurality of timestamps are recorded for the plurality of recorded locations; indexing the plurality of recorded locations according to the plurality of timestamps to form an index; forming remaining recorded locations by discarding ones of the plurality of recorded locations whose corresponding timestamps are outside of a pre- determined number of indices in the index; generating a corresponding average predicted travel time for each segment by, for each of the plurality of intersections, combining remaining timestamps for the remaining recorded locations; and generating the estimated travel time by combining the corresponding average predicted travel time for each segment. However, Barton teaches the technique as above, comprising: capturing, for each of the plurality of intersections (see 9:29-31, data collected “for each intersection”) from data comprising a total number of recorded locations (see 9:21-30, from data which includes the collected data as a whole) of a plurality of vehicles (see Figure 3, 4:48-59, e.g. navigation units in vehicles) , a plurality of recorded locations of the plurality of vehicles (see Claim 9 and 9:20-25, the collected and analyzed data including positions) , wherein the plurality of recorded locations for a corresponding intersection is within a corresponding defined radius around the corresponding intersection (see 8:20-25, position data filtered for that “near intersections,” i.e. meeting a distance criteria around the intersection / radius) , and wherein a plurality of timestamps are recorded for the plurality of recorded locations (see Claim 9, position data including time stamps) ; indexing the plurality of recorded locations according to the plurality of timestamps to form an index (see 9:40-45, further organizing data based on rush hour, i.e. according to the timestamp) ; forming remaining recorded locations by discarding ones of the plurality of recorded locations whose corresponding timestamps are outside of a pre-determined number of indices in the index (see 9:40-45, discarding the data based on the rush hour (outside the desired time range) (see also rejection and interpretation under 112(b))) ; generating a corresponding average predicted travel time for each segment by, for each of the plurality of intersections, combining remaining timestamps for the remaining recorded locations (see 9:35-45, using the position (time stamped) data to identify traffic signs and signals and 16:61 – 17:13, using the traffic sign data to determine travel time for road segments, along with delay or speed profile data which (12:15-20) is average speed) ; and generating the estimated travel time by combining the corresponding average predicted travel time for each segment (see 6:25-27, travel times for each segment summed to provide estimated route travel time) . The motivation to combine Bouillet et al. and Barton was provided in the rejection of Claim 1. Regarding Claim 19, Bouillet et al. discloses a system comprising: a roads repository storing a plurality of roads and a ghost road (see [0011] memory storing maps, [0029] map data including physical connections (roads) and virtual connections (ghost/proxy roads)) ; a navigation service, executing on a computer processor (see [0020] software modules providing routing) , operatively connected to the private roads repository (see Figure 1), and configured to perform operations comprising: generating, by a navigation service, a route for navigating from a route origin to a route destination (see Figure 3, [0032] step 303, computing shortest path for SDO which [0030] specifies starting point and destination) using the roads repository (see [0032] first stage module [0029] using map data) ; identifying a ghost origin and a ghost destination of a ghost road along the route (see [0032] the route including virtual links, which [0025] connect nodes (i.e. ghost / proxy road between ghost origin and destination)) ; sending, to a base roads engine (see [0033] routing algorithm using state/city roads) , a first request for a route from the ghost origin to the ghost destination (see [0033] finding corresponding physical connections [0029] in map data, i.e. a request sent to the routing algorithm) ; receiving, from the base roads engine in response to the first request, a replacement section from the ghost origin to the ghost destination (see [0033] obtaining the corresponding physical connections to the virtual connection) ; replacing, in the route, the ghost road with the replacement section to create an updated route comprising a plurality of segments (see [0033-0034] steps 306-310, replace virtual connections (ghost road) with corresponding physical connections (replacement section), resulting in updated route / end-to-end path) . Bouillet et al. does not explicitly recite: a private roads repository storing a plurality of private roads, generating a route using the private roads repository; and sending, using an application programming interface of a base roads engine, a first request. However, Roy et al. teaches a technique in navigation (see [0004]), including: a private roads repository storing a plurality of private roads (see [0076-0077] indoor map, and see [0047, 0055] memory containing the application including facility database 24 which describes the indoor map, which [0041] may be a mine system, i.e. a type of private road) , generating a route using the private roads repository (see [0076-0077] determine route using indoor map) ; and sending, using an application programming interface of a base roads engine, a first request (see [0077] the sub-starting location and sub-destination may be sent to a third-party outdoor mapping service, and [0114] the mobile application 10 may be in communication with the outdoor service (e.g. Google maps – a base roads engine) via an API) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method combining physical and virtual links of Bouillet et al. to further be used with private and base roads and use an API as taught by Roy et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of further enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to apply to indoor environments while providing sufficient detail for all segments of a route (see Roy et al., [0003]). Bouillet et al. further discloses the maps including travel time data of connections (see [0025] travel time) and presenting of a route (see [0034] display) but does not explicitly recite: generating an estimated travel time from the route origin to the route destination over the plurality of segments of the updated route; and presenting the estimated travel time. However, Barton teaches a technique to output route data (see 6:1-5 route over segments) including: generating an estimated travel time from the route origin to the route destination over the plurality of segments of the complete route (see 6:25-27, travel times for each segment summed to provide estimated route travel time) ; and presenting the estimated travel time (see 6:30-35, output of estimated route travel time, and 6:54-57 output being audible/display, i.e. presenting to user) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the presenting of the route in Bouillet et al. to additionally include travel time output, as taught by Barton, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the navigation service to provide additional information and improving accuracy of travel time estimation by considering of traffic sign data (see Barton 1:47-58, and 17:1-5). Regarding Claim 20 , wherein the system further comprises: a graph database storing a subset of the plurality of segments as edges (see [0025] stored map information includes connections including physical connections (at least a subset of the segments), between nodes) and storing intersections between the plurality of segments as nodes (see [0025] intersections included as nodes) , wherein at least some of the edges connect at least some of the nodes (see [0025] the connections are between the nodes). Bouillet et al. does not explicitly recite the system of claim 19, wherein the operations further comprise: determining, by combining data in the edges, the estimated travel time. However, Barton teaches the technique as above, wherein the operations further comprise: determining, by combining data in the edges, the estimated travel time (see 6:25-27, travel times for each segment summed to provide estimated route travel time) . The motivation to combine Bouillet et al. and Barton was provided in the rejection of Claim 19. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 8, and 10 are rejected under 112(b) and 101 and Double Patenting, and Claim 9 is rejected under Double Patenting. Additionally, the claims are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. However, Claims 2 and 8-10 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejections and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: Regarding Dependent Claims 2 and 8-10, the prior art of Publication US2009/0048776A1 (Bouillet et al.), Published Application US2019/0234743A1 (Roy et al.), and Patent U.S. 7,433,889 B1 (Barton) is determined to render Independent Claim 1 obvious (see the rejection under 103, above, for complete rationale). Additionally, US2019/0234743A1 (Roy et al.) teaches a method/system/program (see Claim 7, Figure 2, [0077]) performing: generating, by a navigation service (see Figures 1, 2, [0055]) , a route for navigating from a route origin to a route destination (see [0076-0077]) using a private roads repository (see [0041, 0077] roads in a mine system) , wherein private roads in the private roads repository comprise a first data format (see [0047, 0055]) ; identifying a ghost origin and a ghost destination of a ghost road along the route (see [0077] for the exterior portion, a sub-starting location and sub-destination) , wherein the base roads engine routes over public roads (see [0114]) , and sending, using the second API, a first request for a route from the ghost origin to the ghost destination (see [0077, 0114]) ; receiving, from the second API of the base roads engine in response to the first request, a replacement section from the ghost origin to the ghost destination (see [0117]) ; presenting the updated route (see [0079] locations of turns along the entire route displayed) . US2016/0161263A1 (Patel) teaches a technique for implementing navigation software including: a repository of a container, the container comprising a roads engine and API (see [0033]) . US2011/0153190A1 (Rolinski et al.) teaches a method for supporting navigation between private and base areas (see e.g. Claim 1), wherein the base roads stored in the base roads repository comprise a second data format heterogeneous to the first data format (see Figure 1, [0023-0024]) . US6456933B1 (Hessing) teaches the storing of transition points to off-board route generation (see e.g. 6:10-34). US2014/0257697A1 (Gishen) teaches private and public legs of routes, including replaceable legs (see e.g. [0006], Claim 7). US2016/0146617A1 (MacFarlane) teaches designation of a path as a proxy for map data (see e.g. Claim 2). US2018/0188063A1 (Thommen et al.) teaches replacement of a placeholder with road sections (see e.g. [0004]). Publication US2020/0284594A1 (Wang et al.) teaches a display of total travel time based on intersections and segments, using historical data which is filtered (see e.g. Claim 1, [0025]). Publication US20180224293A1 (Xu et al.). teaches a graph of nodes, frequency of probe point locations, and discarding / filtering of points, computation of travel time for a link computed, travel time as a function of route, and travel times of alternate routes, for points within a "threshold distance of an intersection point" (see [0041, 0044, 0052, 0081, 0086). Publication US20180032926A1 (Deluca et al.) teaches use of machine learning to assess likelihood of delay (see [0032]. Publication US20160202074A1 (Woodard et al.) teaches use of unsupervised machine learning in travel time variability prediction (see [0034]). Publication US20210366281A1 (Yagasaki) teaches different formats of private and public map data (see [0066]). Publication JP2008045991A teaches the use of combined private and public road data (see [0007, 0009]) Publication JP2019178888A teaches the use of combined private and public road data (see [0006]). Regarding Claim 2, however, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious the method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of intersections connect the plurality of segments, and wherein the method further comprises: capturing, for each of the plurality of intersections from data comprising a total number of recorded locations of a plurality of vehicles, a plurality of recorded locations of the plurality of vehicles, wherein the plurality of recorded locations for a corresponding intersection is within a corresponding defined radius around the corresponding intersection, and wherein the corresponding defined radius is determined according to a combination of masses of the plurality of vehicles and corresponding speed limits over the plurality of segments. Regarding Claim 8, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious the method of claim 7, wherein generating a corresponding average predicted travel time for each segment by, for each of the plurality of intersections, combining remaining timestamps for the remaining recorded locations further comprises: using a mean and plus or minus half of a standard deviation of timestamps, recorded as an inverse Gaussian distribution, as a range of time required to traverse a corresponding segment, wherein the range of time comprises the corresponding average predicted travel time for each segment. Regarding Claim 9, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious the method of claim 1, wherein: the private roads repository is part of a first container comprising a first application programming interface (API), private roads in the private roads repository comprise a first data format, the application programming interface of the base roads engine is a second API, the base roads engine is part of a second container that includes the second API, the ghost road comprises a proxy of a base road route formed from one or more base roads stored in a base roads repository, the base roads engine routes over public roads, the base roads stored in the base roads repository comprise a second data format heterogeneous to the first data format, sending the first request and receiving the replacement section are performed using the second API, and replacing the ghost road with the replacement section is performed using the first API. Regarding Claim 10, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising: transforming a plurality of metadata describing a type of vehicle using the route into a vector data structure; predicting, by an unsupervised clustering machine learning model taking as input the vector data structure, a probability of delay for the type of vehicle; estimating a predicted delay from the probability of delay for the type of vehicle; and presenting the predicted delay together with the estimated travel time. Regarding Claims 2, 8, and 10 , the combination of limitations defining the particular method steps, is not found or made obvious by the prior art. Regarding Claim 9, although similar functions are concepts are taught in the prior art as referenced above, the particular combination of limitations defining the particular use of the containers, APIs, repositories with different data formats, and integration of navigation service and base roads engine in order to generate a route using a replacement section based on a proxy road is not found or made obvious by the prior art without resorting to impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claims. The combination with the other claim limitations, are neither anticipated nor made obvious by the prior arts on record. A search of foreign prior art and Non-Patent Literature was conducted; however, no relevant prior art was found. As such the claimed subject matter of Claims 2 and 8-10 would be allowable. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669 /Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 2 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 3 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 4 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 5 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 6 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 7 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 8 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 9 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 10 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 11 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 12 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 13 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 14 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 15 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 16 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 17 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 18 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 20 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 21 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 22 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 23 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 24 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 25 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 26 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 27 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 28 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 30 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 31 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 32 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 33 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 34 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 35 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 36 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 37 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 38 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 39 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 40 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 41 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/929,110 Page 42 Art Unit: 3669
Prosecution Insights