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 action is in reply to the Application Number 19/273,867 filed on 07/18/2025.
Claims 1-58 have been cancelled.
Claims 59-78 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 59-78 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Jeffrey Chalhoub.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 17th, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“104”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 59-78 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.
Claims 59, 66, and 73 recite the adjective “popular”. Consequently, the adjective “popular” is ambiguous and open-ended as it is unclear what consists of a stop being a “popular” one. The applicant might overcome the rejection by clearly defining what they intend by their use of the adjective “popular” and/or how a stop is determined to be a popular one.
Claims 60, 67, and 74 recite the adjective “main”. Consequently, the adjective “main” is ambiguous and open-ended as it is unclear what consists of a route being a “main” one. The applicant might overcome the rejection by clearly defining what they intend by their use of the adjective “main” and/or how a route is determined to be a main one.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 59-78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more. The claims are being rejected according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 50-57 (January 7, 2019).
Step One: Does the Claim Fall Within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 59 is directed towards a method (process). Dependent claims 60-65 are also directed towards a method (process). Claim 66 is directed towards a system (machine). Dependent claims 67-72 are also directed towards a system (machine). Finally, claim 73 is directed towards at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (machine). Dependent claims 74-78 are also directed towards at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (machine).
Step Two A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. Taking into account claim 59 as one example, the claim recites generating a graph representation of the road network, the graph representation including one or more edges representing one or more road segments in the road network, wherein generating the graph representation comprises processing map data that describes road locations as a series of GPS locations, associating the trip data of the plurality of trips with the graph representation of the road network, creating an ordered sequence of edges for each trip of the plurality of trips, identifying one or more deviations in the ordered sequence of edges for each trip of the plurality of trips, the one or more deviations being representative of stops between an origin and destination, and counting a number of times each deviation appears in the plurality of trips. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a bystander detecting an intersection, noticing a vehicle traversing the intersection, reporting the intersection’s characteristics including road names, headings, speed limits, and environmental surroundings to a driver of the vehicle, and providing driving instructions to the driver of the vehicle to appropriately traverse the intersection. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step Two A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. Claims 59 and 73 recite one additional element – telematics devices. The telematics devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic telematics devices. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 66 recites three additional elements – a processor, a storage medium, and telematics devices. All three elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor, storage medium, and telematics devices. Accordingly, the 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.
On the other hand, claims 59, 66, and 73 recite the additional elements of obtaining, in real time, telematics data from one or more telematics devices associated with one or more vehicles, the telematics data including trip data of a plurality of trips taken by the one or more vehicles and outputting a deviation having a greatest number of occurrences in the plurality of trips as a popular stop.
The obtaining and outputting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as general means of transmitting and receiving data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
This type of abstract idea recited in claims 59-78 is a mental process.
Step Two B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept
No. Regarding claims 59 and 73, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using telematics devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic telematics devices. Mere instructions to apply an exception using telematics devices cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 66, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor, a storage medium, and telematics devices amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor, storage medium, and telematics devices. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a processor, a storage medium, and telematics devices cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are merely further defining the abstract idea by providing field of use limitations on transmitting and receiving data and are not adding anything to the abstract idea set forth in the independent claims such that the invention will amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 60-65, 67-72, and 74-78 are merely field of use limitations which simply further limit the abstract idea set forth in claims 59, 66, and 73, respectively. These claims do not contain further limitations that make them subject matter eligible.
For example, dependent claim 64 merely recites the well understood, routine and conventional computing functions of data transmission and gathering. These claims do not contain further limitations that make them subject matter eligible.
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.
Claims 59-64, 66-71, and 73-78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0304348 A1) in view of Beggel (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0011118 A1) in further view of Seto (JP 2005172740 A).
Regarding Claim 59:
Davidson teaches:
A method of identifying stops in vehicle trip data, comprising: obtaining, in real time, telematics data from one or more telematics devices associated with one or more vehicles, the telematics data including trip data of a plurality of trips taken by the one or more vehicles;, (See (Davidson: Summary – 3rd-7th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Invention – 105th-107th and 387th paragraphs, FIG. 2))
creating an ordered sequence of edges for each trip of the plurality of trips;, (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 164th, 172nd-177th, 187th, and 237th paragraphs))
identifying one or more deviations in the ordered sequence of edges for each trip of the plurality of trips, the one or more deviations being representative of stops between an origin and destination;, (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 123rd-124th, 148th-156th, 190th-205th, 213th-235th, and 336th-353rd paragraphs))
counting a number of times each deviation appears in the plurality of trips;, (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 210th, 272nd-277th, 288th-298th, 321st-322nd, and 358th-363rd paragraphs))
Davidson does not teach but Beggel teaches:
generating a graph representation of the road network, the graph representation including one or more edges representing one or more road segments in the road network, wherein generating the graph representation comprises processing map data that describes road locations as a series of GPS locations; associating the trip data of the plurality of trips with the graph representation of the road network;, (See (Beggel: Background and Summary of the Invention – 2nd-12th and 33rd paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Drawings – 51st-63rd, 69th-74th, and 114th-115th paragraphs, FIG. 2-8))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davidson with these above aforementioned teachings from Beggel in order to create an effective system and method for identifying stops in vehicle trip data. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Davidson’s system for calculating speed and travel times with travel delays with Beggel’s systems and methods for map matching in order to generate a graph representation of a road network including edges representing vehicle route segments, process map data that describes road locations as a series of GPS locations, and associate trip data with the graph representation of the road network. Combining Davidson and Beggel would therefore provide “systems and methods for calculating a map matching confidence which provide improved accuracy and reliability.” (Beggel: Background and Summary of the Invention – 11th paragraph)
Davidson in view of Beggel does not teach but Seto teaches:
and outputting a deviation having a greatest number of occurrences in the plurality of trips as a popular stop., (“In the process of step S <b> 6, […] and advances the route guidance process to the process of step S4.” (Seto: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davidson in view of Beggel with these above aforementioned teachings from Seto in order to create a user-friendly system and method for identifying stops in vehicle trip data. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Davidson’s system for calculating speed and travel times with travel delays with Seto’s route guidance device and program in order to output a stop having a greatest number of occurrences in a plurality of trips as a popular stop along a vehicle route. Combining Davidson and Seto would therefore “require a driver by presenting guidance only for a point not familiar with the driver without requesting a setting operation by the driver. Another object is to provide a route guidance device and a route guidance program that present only information to be performed.” (Seto: Description)
Regarding Claim 60:
Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 59. Davidson further teaches:
The method of claim 59, wherein the one or more deviations are less than a threshold deviation distance from a main route of the ordered sequence of edges., (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 382nd paragraph))
Regarding Claim 61:
Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 60. Davidson further teaches:
The method of claim 60, wherein the threshold deviation distance is 1.5 km., (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 382nd paragraph))
Regarding Claim 62:
Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 60. Davidson further teaches:
The method of claim 60, wherein the threshold deviation distance is less than 2% of a total route distance of the ordered sequence of edges., (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 382nd paragraph))
Regarding Claim 63:
Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 59. Davidson further teaches:
The method of claim 59, further comprising: filtering stops based on or more filtering criteria, the filtering criteria including at least one selected from the group of: stop time, stop type, deviation distance, number of trips, and vehicle type., (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 176th, 194th, 213th-216th, 235th, 256th, 288th-297th, 338th-344th, and 382nd paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 64:
Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 59. Davidson does not teach but Beggel teaches:
The method of claim 59, further comprising: identifying gaps in the trip data compared to the graph representation of the road network; and filling in the gaps, (See (Beggel: Background and Summary of the Invention – 2nd-12th and 33rd paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Drawings – 51st-63rd, 69th-74th, and 114th-115th paragraphs, FIG. 2-8))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davidson with these above aforementioned teachings from Beggel in order to create an effective system and method for identifying stops in vehicle trip data. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Davidson’s system for calculating speed and travel times with travel delays with Beggel’s systems and methods for map matching in order to generate a graph representation of a road network including edges representing vehicle route segments, process map data that describes road locations as a series of GPS locations, and associate trip data with the graph representation of the road network. Combining Davidson and Beggel would therefore provide “systems and methods for calculating a map matching confidence which provide improved accuracy and reliability.” (Beggel: Background and Summary of the Invention – 11th paragraph)
Davidson in view of Beggel does not teach but Seto teaches:
[…] based on a shortest path between a gap start point and a gap end point., (“In the process of step S11, […] when it is determined that the road shape of the shortest route from the current location to the visited point is complicated, the route complexity evaluation unit 13 advances the route guidance process from the process of step S15 to the process of step S11.” (Seto: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davidson in view of Beggel with these above aforementioned teachings from Seto in order to create a user-friendly system and method for identifying stops in vehicle trip data. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Davidson’s system for calculating speed and travel times with travel delays with Seto’s route guidance device and program in order to output a stop having a greatest number of occurrences in a plurality of trips as a popular stop along a vehicle route. Combining Davidson and Seto would therefore “require a driver by presenting guidance only for a point not familiar with the driver without requesting a setting operation by the driver. Another object is to provide a route guidance device and a route guidance program that present only information to be performed.” (Seto: Description)
Regarding Claim 66:
Davidson teaches:
A system for identifying stops in vehicle trip data, the system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one storage medium having encoded thereon executable instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out a method, wherein the method comprises: obtaining, in real time, telematics data from one or more telematics devices associated with one or more vehicles, the telematics data including trip data of a plurality of trips taken by the one or more vehicles;, (See (Davidson: Summary – 3rd-7th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Invention – 105th-107th and 387th paragraphs, FIG. 2))
creating an ordered sequence of edges for each trip of the plurality of trips;, (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 164th, 172nd-177th, 187th, and 237th paragraphs))
identifying one or more deviations in the ordered sequence of edges for each trip of the plurality of trips, the one or more deviations being representative of stops between an origin and destination;, (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 123rd-124th, 148th-156th, 190th-205th, 213th-235th, and 336th-353rd paragraphs))
counting a number of times each deviation appears in the plurality of trips;, (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 210th, 272nd-277th, 288th-298th, 321st-322nd, and 358th-363rd paragraphs))
Davidson does not teach but Beggel teaches:
generating a graph representation of the road network, the graph representation including one or more edges representing one or more road segments in the road network, wherein generating the graph representation comprises processing map data that describes road locations as a series of GPS locations; associating the trip data of the plurality of trips with the graph representation of the road network;, (See (Beggel: Background and Summary of the Invention – 2nd-12th and 33rd paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Drawings – 51st-63rd, 69th-74th, and 114th-115th paragraphs, FIG. 2-8))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davidson with these above aforementioned teachings from Beggel in order to create an effective system and method for identifying stops in vehicle trip data. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Davidson’s system for calculating speed and travel times with travel delays with Beggel’s systems and methods for map matching in order to generate a graph representation of a road network including edges representing vehicle route segments, process map data that describes road locations as a series of GPS locations, and associate trip data with the graph representation of the road network. Combining Davidson and Beggel would therefore provide “systems and methods for calculating a map matching confidence which provide improved accuracy and reliability.” (Beggel: Background and Summary of the Invention – 11th paragraph)
Davidson in view of Beggel does not teach but Seto teaches:
and outputting a deviation having a greatest number of occurrences in the plurality of trips as a popular stop., (“In the process of step S <b> 6, […] and advances the route guidance process to the process of step S4.” (Seto: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davidson in view of Beggel with these above aforementioned teachings from Seto in order to create a user-friendly system and method for identifying stops in vehicle trip data. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Davidson’s system for calculating speed and travel times with travel delays with Seto’s route guidance device and program in order to output a stop having a greatest number of occurrences in a plurality of trips as a popular stop along a vehicle route. Combining Davidson and Seto would therefore “require a driver by presenting guidance only for a point not familiar with the driver without requesting a setting operation by the driver. Another object is to provide a route guidance device and a route guidance program that present only information to be performed.” (Seto: Description)
Regarding Claim 67:
Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 66. Davidson further teaches:
The system of claim 66, wherein the one or more deviations are less than a threshold deviation distance from a main route of the ordered sequence of edges., (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 382nd paragraph))
Regarding Claim 68:
Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 67. Davidson further teaches:
The system of claim 67, wherein the threshold deviation distance is 1.5 km., (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 382nd paragraph))
Regarding Claim 69:
Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 67. Davidson further teaches:
The system of claim 67, wherein the threshold deviation distance is less than 2% of a total route distance of the ordered sequence of edges., (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 382nd paragraph))
Regarding Claim 70:
Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 66. Davidson further teaches:
The system of claim 66, wherein the method further comprises: filtering stops based on or more filtering criteria, the filtering criteria including at least one selected from the group of: stop time, stop type, deviation distance, number of trips, and vehicle type., (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 176th, 194th, 213th-216th, 235th, 256th, 288th-297th, 338th-344th, and 382nd paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 71:
Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 66. Davidson does not teach but Beggel teaches:
The system of claim 66, wherein the method further comprises: identifying gaps in the trip data compared to the graph representation of the road network; and filling in the gaps, (See (Beggel: Background and Summary of the Invention – 2nd-12th and 33rd paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Drawings – 51st-63rd, 69th-74th, and 114th-115th paragraphs, FIG. 2-8))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davidson with these above aforementioned teachings from Beggel in order to create an effective system and method for identifying stops in vehicle trip data. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Davidson’s system for calculating speed and travel times with travel delays with Beggel’s systems and methods for map matching in order to generate a graph representation of a road network including edges representing vehicle route segments, process map data that describes road locations as a series of GPS locations, and associate trip data with the graph representation of the road network. Combining Davidson and Beggel would therefore provide “systems and methods for calculating a map matching confidence which provide improved accuracy and reliability.” (Beggel: Background and Summary of the Invention – 11th paragraph)
Davidson in view of Beggel does not teach but Seto teaches:
[…] based on a shortest path between a gap start point and a gap end point., (“In the process of step S11, […] when it is determined that the road shape of the shortest route from the current location to the visited point is complicated, the route complexity evaluation unit 13 advances the route guidance process from the process of step S15 to the process of step S11.” (Seto: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davidson in view of Beggel with these above aforementioned teachings from Seto in order to create a user-friendly system and method for identifying stops in vehicle trip data. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Davidson’s system for calculating speed and travel times with travel delays with Seto’s route guidance device and program in order to output a stop having a greatest number of occurrences in a plurality of trips as a popular stop along a vehicle route. Combining Davidson and Seto would therefore “require a driver by presenting guidance only for a point not familiar with the driver without requesting a setting operation by the driver. Another object is to provide a route guidance device and a route guidance program that present only information to be performed.” (Seto: Description)
Regarding Claim 73:
Davidson teaches:
At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out a method comprising: obtaining, in real time, telematics data from one or more telematics devices associated with one or more vehicles, the telematics data including trip data of a plurality of trips taken by the one or more vehicles;, (See (Davidson: Summary – 3rd-7th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Invention – 105th-107th and 387th paragraphs, FIG. 2))
creating an ordered sequence of edges for each trip of the plurality of trips;, (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 164th, 172nd-177th, 187th, and 237th paragraphs))
identifying one or more deviations in the ordered sequence of edges for each trip of the plurality of trips, the one or more deviations being representative of stops between an origin and destination;, (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 123rd-124th, 148th-156th, 190th-205th, 213th-235th, and 336th-353rd paragraphs))
counting a number of times each deviation appears in the plurality of trips;, (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 210th, 272nd-277th, 288th-298th, 321st-322nd, and 358th-363rd paragraphs))
Davidson does not teach but Beggel teaches:
generating a graph representation of the road network, the graph representation including one or more edges representing one or more road segments in the road network, wherein generating the graph representation comprises processing map data that describes road locations as a series of GPS locations; associating the trip data of the plurality of trips with the graph representation of the road network;, (See (Beggel: Background and Summary of the Invention – 2nd-12th and 33rd paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Drawings – 51st-63rd, 69th-74th, and 114th-115th paragraphs, FIG. 2-8))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davidson with these above aforementioned teachings from Beggel in order to create an effective system and method for identifying stops in vehicle trip data. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Davidson’s system for calculating speed and travel times with travel delays with Beggel’s systems and methods for map matching in order to generate a graph representation of a road network including edges representing vehicle route segments, process map data that describes road locations as a series of GPS locations, and associate trip data with the graph representation of the road network. Combining Davidson and Beggel would therefore provide “systems and methods for calculating a map matching confidence which provide improved accuracy and reliability.” (Beggel: Background and Summary of the Invention – 11th paragraph)
Davidson in view of Beggel does not teach but Seto teaches:
and outputting a deviation having a greatest number of occurrences in the plurality of trips as a popular stop., (“In the process of step S <b> 6, […] and advances the route guidance process to the process of step S4.” (Seto: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davidson in view of Beggel with these above aforementioned teachings from Seto in order to create a user-friendly system and method for identifying stops in vehicle trip data. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Davidson’s system for calculating speed and travel times with travel delays with Seto’s route guidance device and program in order to output a stop having a greatest number of occurrences in a plurality of trips as a popular stop along a vehicle route. Combining Davidson and Seto would therefore “require a driver by presenting guidance only for a point not familiar with the driver without requesting a setting operation by the driver. Another object is to provide a route guidance device and a route guidance program that present only information to be performed.” (Seto: Description)
Regarding Claim 74:
Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 73. Davidson further teaches:
The at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 73, wherein the one or more deviations are less than a threshold deviation distance from a main route of the ordered sequence of edges., (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 382nd paragraph))
Regarding Claim 75:
Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 74. Davidson further teaches:
The at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 74, wherein the threshold deviation distance is 1.5 km., (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 382nd paragraph))
Regarding Claim 76:
Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 73. Davidson further teaches:
The at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 73, wherein the threshold deviation distance is less than 2% of a total route distance of the ordered sequence of edges., (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 382nd paragraph))
Regarding Claim 77:
Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 73. Davidson further teaches:
The at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 73, wherein the method further comprises: filtering stops based on or more filtering criteria, the filtering criteria including at least one selected from the group of: stop time, stop type, deviation distance, number of trips, and vehicle type., (See (Davidson: Detailed Description of the Invention – 176th, 194th, 213th-216th, 235th, 256th, 288th-297th, 338th-344th, and 382nd paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 78:
Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 73. Davidson does not teach but Beggel teaches:
The at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 73, wherein the method further comprises: identifying gaps in the trip data compared to the graph representation of the road network; and filling in the gaps, (See (Beggel: Background and Summary of the Invention – 2nd-12th and 33rd paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Drawings – 51st-63rd, 69th-74th, and 114th-115th paragraphs, FIG. 2-8))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davidson with these above aforementioned teachings from Beggel in order to create an effective system and method for identifying stops in vehicle trip data. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Davidson’s system for calculating speed and travel times with travel delays with Beggel’s systems and methods for map matching in order to generate a graph representation of a road network including edges representing vehicle route segments, process map data that describes road locations as a series of GPS locations, and associate trip data with the graph representation of the road network. Combining Davidson and Beggel would therefore provide “systems and methods for calculating a map matching confidence which provide improved accuracy and reliability.” (Beggel: Background and Summary of the Invention – 11th paragraph)
Davidson in view of Beggel does not teach but Seto teaches:
[…] based on a shortest path between a gap start point and a gap end point., (“In the process of step S11, […] when it is determined that the road shape of the shortest route from the current location to the visited point is complicated, the route complexity evaluation unit 13 advances the route guidance process from the process of step S15 to the process of step S11.” (Seto: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davidson in view of Beggel with these above aforementioned teachings from Seto in order to create a user-friendly system and method for identifying stops in vehicle trip data. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Davidson’s system for calculating speed and travel times with travel delays with Seto’s route guidance device and program in order to output a stop having a greatest number of occurrences in a plurality of trips as a popular stop along a vehicle route. Combining Davidson and Seto would therefore “require a driver by presenting guidance only for a point not familiar with the driver without requesting a setting operation by the driver. Another object is to provide a route guidance device and a route guidance program that present only information to be performed.” (Seto: Description)
Claims 65 and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0304348 A1) in view of Beggel (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0011118 A1) in further view of Seto (JP 2005172740 A) in even further view of Hou (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0017397 A1).
Regarding Claim 65:
Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 59. Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto does not teach but Hou teaches:
The method of claim 59, further comprising hashing the identified stops., (See (Hou: Brief Summary of the Invention – 5th paragraph and Detailed Description of the Invention – 44th-48th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto with these above aforementioned teachings from Hou in order to create an efficient system and method for identifying stops in vehicle trip data. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Davidson’s system for calculating speed and travel times with travel delays with Hou’s method for identifying and generating on demand travel route modifications to include stops along an existing travel route in order to remove identified stops along a vehicle route. Combining Davidson and Hou would therefore provide “a convenient mechanism for users to add or remove OTW stops to an existing travel route with an enhanced travel routing device, or an ERD.” (Hou: Brief Summary of the Invention – 9th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 72:
Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 66. Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto does not teach but Hou teaches:
The system of claim 66, wherein the method further comprises hashing the identified stops., (See (Hou: Brief Summary of the Invention – 5th paragraph and Detailed Description of the Invention – 44th-48th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davidson in view of Beggel in further view of Seto with these above aforementioned teachings from Hou in order to create an efficient system and method for identifying stops in vehicle trip data. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Davidson’s system for calculating speed and travel times with travel delays with Hou’s method for identifying and generating on demand travel route modifications to include stops along an existing travel route in order to remove identified stops along a vehicle route. Combining Davidson and Hou would therefore provide “a convenient mechanism for users to add or remove OTW stops to an existing travel route with an enhanced travel routing device, or an ERD.” (Hou: Brief Summary of the Invention – 9th paragraph)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights