CTNF 19/205,966 CTNF 74138 G01C 21/3415Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 1. This Office Action is in response to a communication filed on 5/12/2025. 2. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merit. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below. 3. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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. 4. Independent claims 1, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (i.e., at most, applicant claims about using a generic computer to practice a mental process of changing a predetermined route). 101 Analysis - Step 1: Claims 1, 8, and 14 are directed to “a process”, “a system” (i.e., a structure, and “a device”; therefore, they are within at least one of the four statutory categories. 101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I : Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes . Representative claim 1 includes limitation(s) that recites an abstract idea (emphasized below): A method for route management, performed by a first computing system , comprising: receiving, at the first computing module/system from a second computing module/system , a first route comprising a corresponding route segments stored at the second computing system ; accessing, by the first computing system , data associated with each of the corresponding route segments, the data associated with each of the corresponding route segments stored at the first computing system (this limitation is merely about using/applying updated data); determining, based “at least” in part on the data associated with each of the corresponding route segments, whether each of the corresponding segments is navigable; in accordance with a determination that “at least one of” the corresponding plurality of route segments is not navigable, identifying, by the first computing system , a replacement route segment for the at least one of the corresponding route segments that is not navigable (e.g., receiving all available data (including “navigable/non-navigable” data), then selecting related navigable data for use); and transmitting , by the first computing system , a second route to the second computing system (applicant generally linking uses of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment ) , the second route comprising the replacement route segment . As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all." 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("“[M]ental processes .. and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, a method that claims about above steps is an abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of using a device/computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e., there is no “specific” practical structure, or storage medium in those pending claims, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, those claims recite at least one abstract idea. 101 Analysis — Step 2A, Prong II According to the 2019 PEG, the claim is to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application . As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception . The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a generic computer/processor 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 specific practical application . 101 Analysis - Step 2B Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative 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 (i.e., merely replacing/updating a route on a map). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception (e.g., using a generic computer component). Generally applying an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities. The additional limitations of receiving/obtaining data, comparing, and outputting estimated data are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that these claimed activities are all conventional, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data for a ship is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner from the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int'l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere pre/post-solution activity is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. 5. Independent claims 8, and 14 include insignificant generic components to practice the invention (i.e., using processors, and a storage medium to implemented a process of claim 1), having similar claimed limitations in the claimed bodies, they are analyzed and are rejected as above method claim 1. 6. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are also directed to non-statutory subject matter by incorporating their independent claim’ deficiencies; those claims are also ineligible under 35 USC 101 because they do not indicate a specific practical application (e.g., including a significant further) for the claimed features. 7. In summary, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA 8. Claim s 1-5, 7-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grochocki Jr et al (US Pub 20200217682 A1) in view of Seshadri (US Pub 20200033151 A1). A. Per independent claim 1: Grochocki Jr teaches a method for route management, performed by a first computing system, comprising features: - receiving navigation data (see Grochocki Jr FIG. 9, para.[0033]); Grochocki Jr does not expressly disclose about receiving navigation data, at the first computing module/system from a second computing module/system, a first route comprising a corresponding plurality of route segments stored at the second computing system; however, Seshadri ‘151 suggests that idea (see Seshadri ‘151 Fig. 8, para. [0033], [0066]); accessing, by the first computing system, data associated with each of the corresponding plurality of route segments, the data associated with each of the corresponding plurality of route segments stored at the first computing system (this limitation is merely about Grochocki Jr’s using/applying updated data - see Grochocki‘682 FIG.1); determining, based at least in part on the data associated with each of the corresponding plurality of route segments, whether each of the corresponding plurality of route segments is navigable (e.g., from “current traffic information”, see Grochocki‘682 para. [0002]); in accordance with a determination that at least one of the corresponding plurality of route segments is not navigable, identifying, by the first computing system, a replacement route segment for the at least one of the corresponding plurality of route segments that is not navigable (Grochocki‘682 receives all available data of “current traffic information”, (including “navigable/non-navigable” data ), then filtering received data to selecting related navigable data for use - see Grochocki‘682 para. [0002]); and transmitting , by the first computing system, a second route to the second computing system , the second route comprising the replacement route segment (finally, displaying filtered/selected data, see Grochocki‘682 FIG.1 ref. 128). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Grochocki Jr with Seshadri’151 to update a route with available stored segments before outputting a map display – which task has been a successful expectation (see Grochocki Jr FIG. 1) . B. Per dependent claim 2. Grochocki‘682 suggests to determine a “reasonable” navigating decision: determination that a threshold amount of the first route is navigable, transmitting, by a first computing system, route validation data to a 2nd computing system, the route validation data to validate the navigability of the first route (e.g., a limitation step of transmitting related data from one place to another, see Grochocki‘682 FIG.1). C. Per dependent claim 3. Grochocki‘682 suggests a “reasonable” replacement segment is contiguous (e.g., planning a 2 nd route to a vehicle display) with at least one of the route segments of the first route (see Grochocki‘682 FIG.2 ref. 108). D. Per dependent claim 4. Grochocki‘682 suggests about identifying time-based information (e.g., is this segment currently available for traffic? Or close in a certain time of the day?) and/or location- based information related to navigability of the replacement route segment (e.g., ability to identify a “correct”/updated route to a planned destination, see Grochocki‘682 para. [0039]). E. Per dependent claim 5. Grochocki‘682 suggests about the time-based information: time-based closures (e.g., ability to identify current data for a “correct”/updated route to a planned destination, see Grochocki‘682 para. [0039]). ) of the replacement route segment(s). F. Per dependent claim 7: Grochocki‘682, in view of Seshadri’151 suggests about determining, whether a difference/deviation exists between the first route stored in the second computing system and the second route received from the first computing system (e.g., a different in route/distance/threshold/traffic congestion/intensity , see Grochocki‘682 FIG. 1 refs. 128, 132, and see Seshadri’151 para. [0082]). G. Per independent claims 8, and 14: These claims are implemented from steps (in limitations of independent “method” claim 1), with similar limitations in the bodies of claims 8, and 14, together with generic features of a computing system (a device with processor(s) and a nonvolatile computer-readable storage medium to performing claim 1’s steps; therefore, similar rationales, and references are also applied for obvious rejections. H. Per dependent claim 9. Grochocki‘682 also suggests about visually displaying, on a screen of the second computing system, difference s between the segment IDs stored on the second computing system and the segment IDs received from the first computing system (this claim’s limitation is about displaying different data on screen(s) – (see Grochocki‘682 FIGs. 1, 5A, 5B]). I. Per dependent claim 10. Grochocki‘682 also suggests about determining a percentage/”reasonably” allowable/acceptable difference in the first route stored in the second computing system and the second route received from the first computing system (e.g., a difference is only a small block/(short distance), see Grochocki‘682 FIGs. 5A, 5B). J. Per dependent claim 12. Grochocki‘682 suggests about each route segment corresponds to a unique segment identifier (ID) (e.g., turning right on 3 rd street – at point D - a unique route’s name, see Grochocki‘682 FIG. 3A). K. Per dependent claim 13.Grochocki‘682 suggests about generating a new route based at least in part on segment IDs (e.g., a route’s name) received from the first computing system (e.g., displaying on a map a turning right on 3 rd street – at point D - a unique route’s name see Grochocki‘682 FIG. 3A). L. Per dependent claim 15:.Grochocki‘682 suggests about a second computing system renders a new visual representation of the new route (see Grochocki‘682 FIG. 3B). M. Per dependent claim 16:.Grochocki‘682 suggests about new visual representation highlights the differences in the first route and the second route (e.g., displaying a path with dotted line (132), and with solid line (106b), see Grochocki‘682 FIG. 3A). N. Per dependent claim 17:.Grochocki‘682 suggests about segment IDs are transmitted and received between the first computing system and the second computing system in lieu of route segments (e.g., segment IDs are transmitted and received (in the background) to give a user a new display in FIG. 3A see Grochocki‘682 FIG. 3A). O. Per dependent claim 18.Grochocki‘682 suggests about transmitting information related to a mode of transportation (e.g., a car) to the first computing system (e.g., a “practical” car transportation (not by walking) with a farther distance in FIG. 4B , see Grochocki‘682 FIGs. 4A, 4B). P. Per dependent claim 19:.Grochocki‘682 suggests about determination of whether a route segment is navigable is based on at least the mode of transportation transmitted to the first computing system (e.g., a “practical” car transportation (not by walking) with a farther distance in FIG. 4B , see Grochocki‘682 FIGs. 4A, 4B). Q. Per dependent claim 20:.Grochocki‘682 suggests about each route segment corresponds to a unique segment identifier (ID) (e.g., a local route’s name - (e.g., displaying on a map a turning right on 3 rd street – at point D - a unique route’s name, see Grochocki‘682 FIG. 3A) . 07-21-aia AIA 9. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grochocki Jr in view of Seshadri’151, and in view of Young et al (US Pub 20200309533 A1) . The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated. Grochocki Jr in view of Seshadri’151 fail to disclose about generating warning conditions related to weather (e.g., rerouting based on weather conditions); however, Young‘533 suggests that feature, (see Young‘533 [0093]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Grochocki Jr in view of Seshadri’151 with Young‘533 to avoid a route with inclement weather for safety reasons in a trip – which task has been a successful expectation . 07-21-aia AIA 10. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grochocki Jr in view of Seshadri’151, and in view of McGavran’113 (US Pub. 20140365113 A1) . The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 10 are incorporated. Grochocki Jr fails to displaying, on a second computing system , an alert when the percentage difference is larger than a threshold; however, in the same field of endeavor, McGavran’113 suggests that claimed idea (to catch user’s attention; e.g., displaying a warning icon/an upcoming turn, see McGavran’113 para.[0158], or Seshadri’151 para. [0095]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Grochocki Jr in view of Seshadri’151 with McGavran’113 to alert a person for a timely driving action – which task has been a successful expectation. Conclusion 11. Pending claims 1-20 are rejected. 12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, BENDIDI RACHID can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/205,966 Page 2 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/205,966 Page 3 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/205,966 Page 4 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/205,966 Page 5 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/205,966 Page 6 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/205,966 Page 7 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/205,966 Page 8 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/205,966 Page 9 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/205,966 Page 10 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/205,966 Page 11 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/205,966 Page 12 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/205,966 Page 13 Art Unit: 3664
Prosecution Insights