DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the aforementioned Application filed July 1, 2025. Claims 1-14 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Korean Patent Application No. KR10-2024-0087169, filed July 2, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 1, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 13 recites a computer readable recording medium, which stores a program. The specification does not explicitly set forth what constitutes a computer readable recording medium, and therefore, in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media and in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, said medium could be directed towards a transitory propagating signal per se and considered to be non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101, Aug 24, 2009, p. 2. Please refer to MPEP 2111.01.
Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-12, and 14 are directed to a system and method for generating a navigation route based on user input. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under signal-per se (see above), but is being evaluated under the Subject Matter Eligibility Test under the assumption that this rejection will be overcome (in the interest of compact prosecution).
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 14 recites abstract limitations displayed in bold below:
A device for generating a road-based, user-defined route, the device comprising:
a memory storing at least one program; and
a processor configured to execute the at least one program to perform an operation,
wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether a received route generation input comprises an input about a road, determine, based on the route generation input comprising the input about the road, a validity of the input and optionally correct the input based on a result of the determining of the validity, determine a scope of reflection of the road by comparing a first area based on the route generation input with a second area based on the input, and generate a user-defined route that reflects the determined scope of reflection.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. For example, a user looking at a map is able to mentally decide on a location to go to that is different from their destination (i.e. some road, waypoint, landmark, etc.) Following that, the user may be able to verify if the road that they would like to travel to is valid as they themselves may be remembering the name wrong and would realize that such a place does not exist when they look at map. The user may then draw boxes on the map following whatever criteria they deem relevant and visually see if there is any overlap between the boxes (scope of reflection) and ultimately decide how to plan their route based on that information. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, additionally and/or alternatively represent mathematical relationships (i.e. configuring models and performing calculations) and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer or computing element does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
A device for generating a road-based, user-defined route, the device comprising:
a memory storing at least one program; and
a processor configured to execute the at least one program to perform an operation,
wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether a received route generation input comprises an input about a road, determine, based on the route generation input comprising the input about the road, a validity of the input and optionally correct the input based on a result of the determining of the validity, determine a scope of reflection of the road by comparing a first area based on the route generation input with a second area based on the input, and generate a user-defined route that reflects the determined scope of reflection.
The functions of the device, memory, and processor are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The characterization of the device as being a device for generating a road-based, user-defined route amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements of the device, memory, and processor, amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, the characterization of the device for generating a road-based, user-defined route amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The limitations of claim 1 are comparable to the limitations of claim 14 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
The various metrics/variables/limitations of claims 2-13 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without recitation of any further additional elements. Therefore, tor the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-10, and 13-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santilli et al. (US 20160258775; hereinafter Santilli), in view of Yokota et al. (US 20080243376; hereinafter Yokota), and further in view of Fryer et al. (US 20130204524; hereinafter Fryer).
Regarding Claim 1,
Santilli teaches
A method of generating a road-based, user-defined route, the method comprising:
determining whether a received route generation input comprises an input about a road; (Santilli: Paragraph [0050]; “...a “service point” may be any identifiable location, such as one or more addresses, delivery locations, parking locations, sidewalks, highways, trails, alleys, paths, walkways, streets, street segments, entrance or exit ramps, roads, longitude and latitude points, geocodes, zip codes, area codes, territories, cities, counties, states, provinces, countries, stops (e.g., pick up stops, delivery stops, vehicle visits, stops) geofenced areas, geographic areas, landmarks, buildings, bridges, and/or other identifiable locations.”; [0104])
Santilli does not teach a system for verifying input validity or determining a scope of reflection.
However in the same field of endeavor, Yokota teaches
...
determining, based on the route generation input comprising the input about the road, a validity of the input and optionally correcting the input based on a result of the determining of the validity; (Yokota: Paragraph [0056]-[0058]; The system checks a user’s input against a database to verify if the user input exists.)
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the navigation system of Santilli with the input validity checking system of Yokota for the benefit of easily entering and searching a street name to determine an address of the destination. (Yokota: Paragraph [0012])
Santilli, in view of Yokota, does not teach a system for determining a scope of reflection.
However in the same field of endeavor, Fryer teaches
...
determining a scope of reflection of the road by comparing a first area based on the route generation input with a second area based on the input; (Fryer: Paragraph [0103]-[0105], FIG. 9) and
generating a user-defined route that reflects the determined scope of reflection. (Fryer: Paragraph [0106]-[0107], FIG. 9)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the navigation system of Santilli, in view of Yokota, with the scope of reflection determination system of Fryer for the benefit of a navigation system that can perform faster calculation of routes and enable more direct and efficient determination of routes than using some other methods. (Fryer: Paragraph [0051])
Regarding Claim 2,
Santilli, in view of Yokota, and further in view of Fryer, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the route generation input further comprises information about a destination of the route. (Santilli: Paragraph [0088]; “Whenever the mapping/routing interface is active, users (e.g., operating user computing entities 140) may select a destination route/region using the form's features or functionality.”)
Regarding Claim 3,
Santilli, in view of Yokota, further in view of Fryer, teach
The method of claim 1, wherein the input about the road is an input via a voice of a user. (Santilli: Paragraph [0046]; “The user input interface can comprise any of a number of devices allowing the mobile computing entity 105 to receive information/data, such as a keypad 418 (hard or soft), a touch display, voice/speech or motion interfaces, scanners, readers, or other input device.”)
Regarding Claim 4,
Santilli, in view of Yokota, and further in view of Fryer, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the correcting of the input comprises determining the validity of the input based on whether the input matches any one of road names, tunnel names, bridge names, and facility names that are stored in a database. (Yokota: Paragraph [0013])
The motivation to combine Santilli, Yokota, and Fryer, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 5,
Santilli, in view of Yokota, and further in view of Fryer, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the correcting of the input comprises correcting a misspelling in the input about the road. (Yokota: Paragraph [0030])
The motivation to combine Santilli, Yokota, and Fryer, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 6,
Santilli, in view of Yokota, and further in view of Fryer, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the correcting of the input comprises correcting the input about the road based on another name, a nickname, or an old name for the input about the road. (Yokota: Paragraph [0045], FIG. 4A-4K)
The motivation to combine Santilli, Yokota, and Fryer, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7,
Santilli, in view of Yokota, and further in view of Fryer, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining of whether the received route generation input comprises the input about the road comprises paraphrasing the input about the road and then determining whether the received route generation input comprises the input about the road. (Yokota: Paragraph [0074], FIG. 6A-6K)
The motivation to combine Santilli, Yokota, and Fryer, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 8,
Santilli, in view of Yokota, and further in view of Fryer, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining of the scope of reflection of the road comprises defining a first area as a rectangular range generated based on an origin and a destination included in the route generation input, defining a second area as a rectangular range generated based on the input, and determining the scope of reflection based on an overlap between the first area and the second area. (Fryer: Paragraph [0104]-[0105], FIG. 9)
The motivation to combine Santilli, Yokota, and Fryer, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 9,
Santilli, in view of Yokota, and further in view of Fryer, teaches
The method of claim 8, wherein the determining of the scope of reflection of the road further comprises determining the scope of reflection based on a road that is common to both the first area and the second area. (Fryer: Paragraph [0105]; “In some embodiments, streets links are considered for routing when the street links are located entirely or partly within bounding boxes having a matching classification or routing class. If the street links are not located entirely or partly within bounding boxes having a matching routing class to the street links, the street links can be excluded from consideration for routing.”)
The motivation to combine Santilli, Yokota, and Fryer, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 10,
Santilli, in view of Yokota, and further in view of Fryer, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining of the scope of reflection of the road comprises determining the scope of reflection based on an overlap between a line defined by an origin and a destination in the first area, and a road in the second area. (Fryer: Paragraph [0105]; “In some embodiments, streets links are considered for routing when the street links are located entirely or partly within bounding boxes having a matching classification or routing class. If the street links are not located entirely or partly within bounding boxes having a matching routing class to the street links, the street links can be excluded from consideration for routing.”)
The motivation to combine Santilli, Yokota, and Fryer, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 13,
Santilli, in view of Yokota, and further in view of Fryer, teaches
A computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a program for executing the method of claim 1. (Santilli: Paragraph [0021])
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is analogous to Claim 14 limitations with the following additional limitations:
...the device comprising:
a memory storing at least one program; (Santilli: Paragraph [0023]) and
a processor configured to execute the at least one program to perform an operation, (Santilli: Paragraph [0029]; Processors 200)
...
Therefore the claim is rejected under the same premise as Claim 14.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santilli, in view of Yokota, as applied to claims 1-10, and 13-14, above, and further in view of Couleaud et al. (US 20240426621; hereinafter Couleaud).
Regarding Claim 11,
Santilli, in view of Yokota, further in view of Fryer, teaches
The method of claim 1,...
Santilli, in view of Yokota, and further in view of Fryer, does not teach a system for assigning weights to route points and generating a route based on said weights.
However in the same field of endeavor, Couleaud teaches
...wherein the generating of the user-defined route comprises:
determining whether a preferred point to which a first weight is assigned exists in the first area; (Couleaud: Paragraph [0053]; “In some examples, selection of the target route from among the candidate routes can include identifying the candidate route that travels by the greatest number of waypoints. In other examples, it can include identifying the route that travels by the waypoints that are weighted the highest (e.g., wherein the total of all waypoints along the route is the greatest, factoring in any weights, even if the absolute number of waypoints is not the greatest).”) and
generating the user-defined route such that the preferred point is included in the user-defined route based on the first weight. (Couleaud: Paragraph [0053]; “Route A that passes by higher weighted waypoints may be selected over route B that passes by lower weighted waypoints, even if they both meet the constraints and pass by the same number of waypoints.” The higher weighted waypoints are considered preferred points and are included in the route.)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the navigation system of Santilli, in view of Yokota, and further in view of Fryer, with the system for generating a route based on assigned weights of Couleaud, for the benefit of maximizing alignment of the resulting route with the operator's intent. (Couleaud: Paragraph [0001])
Regarding Claim 12,
Santilli, in view of Yokota, further in view of Fryer, and further in view of Couleaud, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the generating of the user-defined route comprises:
determining whether an avoidance point to which a second weight is assigned exists in the first area; (Couleaud: Paragraph [0053]; “In some examples, selection of the target route from among the candidate routes can include identifying the candidate route that travels by the greatest number of waypoints. In other examples, it can include identifying the route that travels by the waypoints that are weighted the highest (e.g., wherein the total of all waypoints along the route is the greatest, factoring in any weights, even if the absolute number of waypoints is not the greatest).”) and
generating the user-defined route such that the avoidance point is excluded from the user-defined route based on the second weight. (Couleaud: Paragraph [0053]; “Route A that passes by higher weighted waypoints may be selected over route B that passes by lower weighted waypoints, even if they both meet the constraints and pass by the same number of waypoints.” The lower weighted waypoints are considered avoidance points and are excluded from the route.)
The motivation to combine Santilli, Yokota, Fryer, and Couleaud, is the same as stated for Claim 11 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights