DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP23218844.1, filed on 12/20/2023.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “time for user” should be –time for the user--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed subject matter is drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, nor is the abstract idea as a judicial exception integrated into a practical application. With regards to step 1, the claimed invention is directed to a method.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 1
For step 2A, prong 1, the claims are to be analyzed under MPEP 2106.04 to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold text).
Claim 1 recites:
A method of predicting a journey time for a user traversing a route, wherein the route comprises a plurality of road segments, the method comprising:
calculating a plurality of potential journey times for the route, said calculating including, for each potential journey time of the plurality:
stochastically generating a respective route state for the route, wherein a route state includes for each road segment of the route, a respective traffic state for said road segment selected from a plurality of traffic states, and
determining said potential journey time of the route state wherein the potential journey time is based on a driving profile of the user and the traffic states of the road segments of the respective route state;
predicting the journey time for user traversing the route based on the plurality of potential journey times for the route.
These limitations, as drafted, are a method that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental concept. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as a mental process.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106.04(d), the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application.”
In the present case, the additional elements beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites:
A method of predicting a journey time for a user traversing a route, wherein the route comprises a plurality of road segments, the method comprising:
calculating a plurality of potential journey times for the route, said calculating including, for each potential journey time of the plurality:
stochastically generating a respective route state for the route, wherein a route state includes for each road segment of the route, a respective traffic state for said road segment selected from a plurality of traffic states, and
determining said potential journey time of the route state wherein the potential journey time is based on a driving profile of the user and the traffic states of the road segments of the respective route state;
predicting the journey time for user traversing the route based on the plurality of potential journey times for the route.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional element of “A method of predicting a journey time for a user traversing a route”. This additional element is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the additional element of “wherein the route comprises a plurality of road segments, the method comprising,” “wherein a route state includes for each road segment of the route, a respective traffic state for said road segment selected from a plurality of traffic states, and” “wherein the potential journey time is based on a driving profile of the user and the traffic states of the road segments of the respective route state” and “based on the plurality of potential journey times for the route” are directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solutionary).
101 Analysis: Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the MPEP 2106.05, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, regardless of whether they are looked at individually or in combination.
As discussed above, the additional elements of “wherein the route comprises a plurality of road segments, the method comprising,” “wherein a route state includes for each road segment of the route, a respective traffic state for said road segment selected from a plurality of traffic states, and” “wherein the potential journey time is based on a driving profile of the user and the traffic states of the road segments of the respective route state” and “based on the plurality of potential journey times for the route” each amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (see below). And a conclusion that additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. These particular additional limitations are each undeniably well-understood, routine, and conventional activities already known in the art. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v.Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, and/or merely the outputting of data in a similar manner, are well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a generic manner.
Dependent claims 2 – 13 and 16 - 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or also contain well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 8 – 10, 14 – 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al (US Patent No: 10,535,256 B1, hereinafter Lim) in view of Monteil et al. (US Pub No: 2019/0325325 A1, hereinafter Monteil).
Regarding Claim 1:
Lim discloses:
A method of predicting a journey time for a user traversing a route, wherein the route comprises a plurality of road segments, the method comprising. Column 43 describes using stochastic shortest-path algorithms to determine alternate path segments for related street segments.
calculating a plurality of potential journey times for the route, said calculating including, for each potential journey time of the plurality. Column 6 describes a stochastic route planning algorithm to determine the likelihood of reached the destination by the specified arrival time for at least one route.
stochastically generating a respective route state for the route, wherein a route state includes for each road segment of the route, a respective traffic state for said road segment selected from a plurality of traffic states. Column 43 describes a stochastic shortest-path algorithm that can determine the time to navigate each route based on a mean travel time. The mean travel time can be based on historical observation and/or real time traffic statistics.
predicting the journey time for user traversing the route based on the plurality of potential journey times for the route. Column 43 describes a stochastic shortest-path algorithm that can determine the time to navigate each route based on a mean travel time. The mean travel time can be based on historical observation and/or real time traffic statistics. Column 6 describes a stochastic route planning algorithm to determine the likelihood of reached the destination by the specified arrival time for at least one route.
Lim does not disclose a driving profile of the user.
Monteil, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
and determining said potential journey time of the route state wherein the potential journey time is based on a driving profile of the user and the traffic states of the road segments of the respective route state. Paragraph [0067] describes a vehicle operator profile for each operator of the vehicle. This includes traffic data, weather data, road conditions, etc…
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Lim to incorporate the teachings Monteil to show a driving profile of the user. One would have been motivated to do so because certain users may drive faster or slower, have different destinations to go to or have various predictive driving habits. This helps to mitigate unforeseen circumstances or traffic in a network.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 15:
Lim discloses:
A computer-readable medium storing a computer program which, when executed by computer processor. Column 17 describes a processor and a memory.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 2:
Lim discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein the plurality of route states comprises one or more non-limiting traffic states and one or more limiting traffic states. Column 43 describes determining traffic congestion for each street segment, therefore in combination with other street segments the route can have a mix of congested and open roadways.
Regarding Claim 3:
Lim discloses:
The method of claim 2 wherein the one or more limiting traffic states are any of: congested traffic, or synchronized traffic. Column 43 describes determining traffic congestion for each street segment, therefore in combination with other street segments the route can have a mix of congested and open roadways.
Regarding Claim 8:
Lim discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein said generating comprises, for each road segment of a potential route state, selecting the respective traffic state for said road segment from the plurality of traffic states, based on a traffic state probability associated with said road segment. Column 43 describes determining traffic congestion for each street segment, therefore in combination with other street segments the route can have a mix of congested and open roadways.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 8 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 9:
Lim discloses:
The method of claim 8 wherein the traffic state probability associated with at least one road segment is dependent on at least the traffic state of another road segment of the potential route state. Column 43 describes determining traffic congestion for each street segment, therefore in combination with other street segments the route can have a mix of congested and open roadways.
Regarding Claim 10:
Monteil teaches:
The method of claim 8 wherein the traffic state associated with at least one road segment is dependent on at least one of: a predicted time of day for traversing the road segment; predicted weather conditions for the road segment; or a known event associated with the road segment. Paragraph [0067] describes using weather data relating to the non-recurrent events learning and propagating system for the vehicle.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 10 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 4 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Monteil and further in view of Zhang et al. (US Pub No: 2021/0335132 A1, hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding Claim 4:
Lim and Monteil teach the above limitations in claim 2. Lim and Monteil do not teach a respective road restriction for at least one of the road segments in a non-limiting traffic states is a road restriction.
Zhang, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The method of claim 2 wherein said determining is based at least in part on a respective road restriction for at least one of the road segments in a non-limiting traffic states is a road restriction. Paragraph [0045] describes road links/segments that can have restrictions such as speed limits and turn restrictions at intersections.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Lim to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to show a respective road restriction for at least one of the road segments in a non-limiting traffic state is a road restriction. One would have been motivated to do so to remove any routes that violate restrictions along the travel route.
Regarding Claim 5:
Zhang teaches:
The method of claim 4 wherein the road restriction is any of: a speed restriction, a traffic control system, a road class, or a road condition. Paragraph [0045] describes road links/segments that can have restrictions such as speed limits and turn restrictions at intersections.
Claim(s) 6 – 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Monteil and further in view of Fowe (US Pub No: 2019/0331502 A1, hereinafter Fowe).
Regarding Claim 6:
Lim and Monteil teach the above limitations in claim 1. Lim and Monteil do not teach calculating an indication of confidence for the journey time for the user traversing the route.
Fowe, in the analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein the step of predicting comprises calculating an indication of confidence for the journey time for user traversing the route. Paragraph [0033] describes determining alternate routes with a higher ETA confidence.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Lim to incorporate the teachings of Fowe to show calculating an indication of confidence for the journey time for the user traversing the route. One would have been motivated to do so to determine the route with the lowest cost that meet the required ETA ([0033] of Fowe).
Regarding Claim 16:
Fowe teaches:
The method of claim 2 wherein the step of predicting comprises calculating an indication of confidence for the journey time for user traversing the route. Paragraph [0033] describes determining alternate routes with a higher ETA confidence.
Regarding Claim 7:
Lim discloses:
The method of claim 6 wherein the indication of confidence is any one of: a confidence interval; or a likelihood of the user traversing the route within the journey time. Column 6 describes a stochastic route planning algorithm to determine the likelihood of reached the destination by the specified arrival time for at least one route.
Claim(s) 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Monteil and further in view of Myers et al. (US Pub No: 2020/0284601 A1, hereinafter Myers).
Regarding Claim 11:
Lim and Monteil teach the above limitations in claim 1. Lim and Monteil do not teach a driving profile of a user comprising a driver behavior of the user.
Myers, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein the driving profile of the user comprises any of: the mode of transport of the user; the vehicle of the user; or a driver behavior of the user. Paragraph [0027] describes user profiles 242 that determine the user’s preferred driving behavior and/or preferred routes.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Lim to incorporate the teachings of Myers to show a driving profile of a user comprising a driver behavior of the user. One would have been motivated to do so to designate potential routes based on the user preferences in the user profile (Abstract of Myers).
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 11 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 12 - 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Monteil and further in view of Mintz (US Pub No: 2020/0234582 A1, hereinafter Mintz).
Regarding Claim 12:
Lim and Monteil teach the above limitations in claim 1. Lim and Monteil do not teach potential journey times are calculated until a convergence threshold is reached.
Mintz, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein potential journey times are calculated until a convergence threshold is reached. Paragraph [0551] describes determining paths using a convergence objective along a plurality of migrations to obtain a new alternative path according to the threshold.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Lim to incorporate the teachings of Mintz to show potential journey times are calculated until a convergence threshold is reached. One would have been motivated to do so to produce substantially coordinate trips ([0067] of Mintz).
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 12 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 13:
Mintz teaches:
The method of claim 12 wherein the convergence threshold comprises any of: convergence criteria for the distribution of the plurality of potential journey times; a predetermined number of potential journey times; or a predetermined variance of the plurality of potential journey times. Paragraph [0551] describes determining paths using a convergence objective along a plurality of migrations to obtain a new alternative path according to the threshold.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ho (US Pub No: 2025/0189331): This invention provides a bidirectional interactive traffic-control management system with improved operational architecture through edge computation. The system comprises a server including a road and traffic network information subsystem, and an urban traffic control subsystem; and a plurality of terminal devices. For the purpose of edge computing, the plurality of terminal devices, located respectively at a road user end or a roadway end, is independently provided from a central server. The urban traffic control subsystem further includes an intersection grouping module for grouping adjacent intersections according to a correlation nature of their approach arrival-flow patterns, wherein the intersections in the digital urban traffic-control road network are divided into signal groups including isolated intersection groups, arterial intersection groups, and network intersection groups according to the correlation nature of their approach arrival-flow patterns, either high or low, between adjacent intersections in the urban traffic control network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY KHANDPUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5090. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 6:30.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/JAY KHANDPUR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658