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 .
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim priority for EP foreign application EP24197906.1, filed on 09/02/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Conditional Limitations
Regarding contingent or conditional clauses (e.g., “when . . .” in line 10 of claim 1, “when …” in line 1 of claim 7, “if…” in line 2 of claim 11 and “when…” in line 2 of claim 12), the examiner applies the guidance of MPEP 2111.04, II. and the PTAB Decision in Ex parte RANDAL C. SCHULHAUSER et al. (Precedential), Appeal 2013-007847, decided 28 April 2016, where the Board decided:
"A proper interpretation of claim language, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim during prosecution, must construe the claim language in a way that at least encompasses the broadest interpretation of the claim language for purposes of infringement. . . . [In a method claim, if] the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. . . . [However, the] broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. This interpretation of the system claim differs from the method claim because the structure [] is present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. Unlike [the method claim], which is written in a manner that does not require all of the steps to be performed should the condition precedent not be met, [the system claim] is limited to the structure capable of performing all the recited functions."
Applicant may change the contingent/conditional clauses (as noted above) in claims 1, 7 , 11 and 12, if desired, in order to show that applicant does not intend these clauses to be construed as contingent/conditional clauses, but rather need be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed, if such be applicant’s intent.
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 8-9 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a path between a pair of nodes" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All dependent claims that depend on rejected claims are also rejected.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 14 is directed to an apparatus and claim 18 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Therefore, claims 1, 14 and 18 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.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 14 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A computer implemented method to rank a plurality of maneuvers in a road network, the road network comprising a set of nodes and a set of roads, where each of the roads of the set of roads is arranged to connect two neighboring nodes of the set of nodes, the method comprising:
associating a value with each of one or more maneuvers available at a central node of the set of nodes;
selecting a path between a pair of nodes of the set of nodes based on a predefined criterion;
and changing the value associated with a respective maneuver from the one or more maneuvers at the central node when the respective maneuver is part of the selected path.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “associating …”, “selecting …” and “changing …” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 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).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are 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 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 limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer implemented method to rank a plurality of maneuvers in a road network, the road network comprising a set of nodes and a set of roads, where each of the roads of the set of roads is arranged to connect two neighboring nodes of the set of nodes, the method comprising:
associating a value with each of one or more maneuvers available at a central node of the set of nodes;
selecting a path between a pair of nodes of the set of nodes based on a predefined criterion;
and changing the value associated with a respective maneuver from the one or more maneuvers at the central node when the respective maneuver is part of the selected path.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. Lastly, claims 1 and 16 further recite “An apparatus for ranking maneuvers in a road network, the apparatus comprising a memory storing executable program code and at least one processing unit configured to execute the program code to cause the apparatus to perform operations comprising:” and “One or more computer-readable media storing executable program code, the program code executable by at least one processing unit to perform operations for ranking maneuvers in a road network, the operations comprising:” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
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 a 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, 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 abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, 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 using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
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 over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-13, 15-17 and 19-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims merely define terms or have additional steps such as “ranking”, “determining”and “selecting”. Therefore, dependent claims 10-14 and 16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In regards to claim 18 – Applicant is claiming a computer program, which is directed to non-statutory subject matter, see MPEP section 2106.1. the claim recites limitation “One or more computer-readable media storing executable program code, the program code executable by at least one processing unit to perform operations for ranking maneuvers in a road network, the operations comprising”, the applicant does not cite a non-transitory term, it could be interpreted as carrier wave. It is suggested that the applicant to amend the claim 18 to include the non-transitory term.
In addition, dependent claims 19-20 are also rejected for depending on the rejected dependent claim and should also be amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4, 7, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mund WO2012089277A1 (English Translation) in view of Niewiadomski (US 11079245 B1).
With respect to claims 1, 7, 11 and 12, regarding contingent or conditional clauses (e.g., “when . . .” in line 10 of claim 1, “when …” in line 1 of claim 7, “if…” in line 2 of claim 11 and “when…” in line 2 of claim 12), the examiner applies the guidance of MPEP 2111.04, II.
Regarding Claim 1, Mund teaches A computer implemented method to rank a plurality of maneuvers in a road network, the road network comprising a set of nodes and a set of roads, where each of the roads of the set of roads is arranged to connect two neighboring nodes of the set of nodes, the method comprising (A method for ranking multiple maneuvers in a road network by giving the maneuvers a wight value. The road network comprises a set of nodes and a set of roads that are arranged to connect to each other. see at least [¶011-013 & 024-025]):
associating a value with each of one or more maneuvers available at a central node of the set of nodes (Associating a weighted value to each of the one or more maneuvers available at a central node of the set of nodes. see at least [¶024-026]);
(Examiner notes that due to the conditional limitation, the limitation below does not have to be included, however, the art rejection is left in place for future reference.)
and changing the value associated with a respective maneuver from the one or more maneuvers at the central node when the respective maneuver is part of the selected path (Changing the weighted value associated with a respective maneuver at a node, when the maneuver is part of the selected path/trace. see at least [¶011-012, 030, 032-033 & Claim 1]).
Mund does not explicitly teach selecting a path between a pair of nodes of the set of nodes based on a predefined criterion.
Shall be noted that Mund teaches to select traces that are commonly used to adjust the values of the maneuvers at a node, broadly speaking a trace could be interpreted as a path. (see at least [“[¶038] The traces (determined from database 44) are grouped relating to each possible maneuver at a given intersection. The traces relating to a particular maneuver are then each associated with a specified one of the bins corresponding to their trace creation date. For each maneuver categorized trace, its weight value is then calculated as a function of the factor assigned to the bin with which that particular trace is associated..….”) For more clarification the examiner is using secondary reference of Niewiadomski.
Niewiadomski does teach selecting a path between a pair of nodes of the set of nodes based on a predefined criterion (Selecting a path/edge between a pair of nodes based on a predefined criterion (cost). see at least [Column 5-6, Lines 52-22]);
Niewiadomski would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of route planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mund to use the technique of selecting a path between a pair of nodes of the set of nodes based on a predefined criterion as taught by Niewiadomski. Doing so would lead to improved selection of a cost-effective route (see at least [Column 6, Lines 4-22]).
Regarding Claim 2, Mund and Niewiadomski teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Mund teaches wherein the method further comprises: ranking the plurality of the maneuvers in the road network based on the value associated with the each of the plurality of maneuvers (Ranking multiple maneuvers in a road network by giving the maneuvers a weight value in order to determine the usage and importance of the maneuvers in a road network. see at least [¶09, 011-013 & 024-025]).
Regarding Claim 3, Mund and Niewiadomski teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Niewiadomski teaches wherein the predefined criterion is based on a cost associated with the path between the pair of nodes (The predefined criterion is based on the cost associated with a path/edge between a pair of nodes. see at least [Column 5-6, Lines 52-22]);
Niewiadomski would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of route planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mund to use the technique of having the predefined criterion is based on a cost associated with the path between the pair of nodes as taught by Niewiadomski. Doing so would lead to improved selection of a cost-effective route (see at least [Column 6, Lines 4-22]).
Regarding Claim 4, Mund and Niewiadomski teach all of the limitations of claim 3 as shown above, furthermore, Niewiadomski teaches wherein the cost associated with the path is based on one or more of: a length of the path, an expected time traveling on the path, a power consumption traveling on the path, and a toll fee for traveling on the path (The cost associated with the path can be based on the length of the path, expected travel time or power, energy consumption. see at least [Column 3-4, Lines 47-6 & Column 5-6, Lines 52-22]);
Niewiadomski would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of route planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mund to use the technique of having the cost associated with the path is based on one or more of: a length of the path, an expected time traveling on the path, a power consumption traveling on the path, and a toll fee for traveling on the path as taught by Niewiadomski. Doing so would lead to improved selection of a cost-effective route (see at least [Column 6, Lines 4-22]).
Regarding Claim 6, Mund and Niewiadomski teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Mund teaches wherein changing the value associated with the respective maneuver is based on the cost associated with the selected path (Changing the value associated with a maneuver is based on the cost/time associated with the selected path/trace. see at least [¶011-012, 024, 026, 032 & 038]).
Regarding Claim 7, Mund and Niewiadomski teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. (Conditional Limitation)
Regarding Claim 11, Mund and Niewiadomski teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. (Conditional Limitation)
Regarding Claim 12, Mund and Niewiadomski teach all of the limitations of claim 11 as shown above. (Conditional Limitation)
Regarding Claim 13, Mund and Niewiadomski teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Mund teaches wherein each of the plurality of maneuvers in the road network is a transition from a first road of the road network to a second road of the road network at a node of the road network (Each of the maneuvers in the road network is a transition/movement from a first road to a second road at a node of the road network. see at least [¶025 & FIG 2]).
Regarding Claim 14, Mund teaches An apparatus for ranking maneuvers in a road network, the apparatus comprising a memory storing executable program code and at least one processing unit configured to execute the program code to cause the apparatus to perform operations comprising (see at least [¶011-013, 024-025 & 065]):
associating a value with each of one or more maneuvers available at a central node of the set of nodes (Associating a weighted value to each of the one or more maneuvers available at a central node of the set of nodes. see at least [¶024-026]);
and changing the value associated with a respective maneuver from the one or more maneuvers at the central node when the respective maneuver is part of the selected path (Changing the weighted value associated with a respective maneuver at a node, when the maneuver is part of the selected path/trace. see at least [¶011-012, 030, 032-033 & Claim 1]).
Mund does not explicitly teach selecting a path between a pair of nodes of the set of nodes based on a predefined criterion.
Shall be noted that Mund teaches to select traces that are commonly used to adjust the values of the maneuvers at a node, broadly speaking a trace could be interpreted as a path. (see at least [“[¶038] The traces (determined from database 44) are grouped relating to each possible maneuver at a given intersection. The traces relating to a particular maneuver are then each associated with a specified one of the bins corresponding to their trace creation date. For each maneuver categorized trace, its weight value is then calculated as a function of the factor assigned to the bin with which that particular trace is associated..….”) For more clarification the examiner is using secondary reference of Niewiadomski.
Niewiadomski does teach selecting a path between a pair of nodes of the set of nodes based on a predefined criterion (Selecting a path/edge between a pair of nodes based on a predefined criterion (cost). see at least [Column 5-6, Lines 52-22]);
Niewiadomski would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of route planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mund to use the technique of selecting a path between a pair of nodes of the set of nodes based on a predefined criterion as taught by Niewiadomski. Doing so would lead to improved selection of a cost-effective route (see at least [Column 6, Lines 4-22]).
Regarding Claim 18, Mund teaches One or more computer-readable media storing executable program code, the program code executable by at least one processing unit to perform operations for ranking maneuvers in a road network, the operations comprising (see at least [¶011-013, 024-025 & 065]):
associating a value with each of one or more maneuvers available at a central node of the set of nodes (Associating a weighted value to each of the one or more maneuvers available at a central node of the set of nodes. see at least [¶024-026]);
and changing the value associated with a respective maneuver from the one or more maneuvers at the central node when the respective maneuver is part of the selected path (Changing the weighted value associated with a respective maneuver at a node, when the maneuver is part of the selected path/trace. see at least [¶011-012, 030, 032-033 & Claim 1]).
Mund does not explicitly teach selecting a path between a pair of nodes of the set of nodes based on a predefined criterion.
Shall be noted that Mund teaches to select traces that are commonly used to adjust the values of the maneuvers at a node, broadly speaking a trace could be interpreted as a path. (see at least [“[¶038] The traces (determined from database 44) are grouped relating to each possible maneuver at a given intersection. The traces relating to a particular maneuver are then each associated with a specified one of the bins corresponding to their trace creation date. For each maneuver categorized trace, its weight value is then calculated as a function of the factor assigned to the bin with which that particular trace is associated..….”) For more clarification the examiner is using secondary reference of Niewiadomski.
Niewiadomski does teach selecting a path between a pair of nodes of the set of nodes based on a predefined criterion (Selecting a path/edge between a pair of nodes based on a predefined criterion (cost). see at least [Column 5-6, Lines 52-22]);
Niewiadomski would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of route planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mund to use the technique of selecting a path between a pair of nodes of the set of nodes based on a predefined criterion as taught by Niewiadomski. Doing so would lead to improved selection of a cost-effective route (see at least [Column 6, Lines 4-22]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mund WO2012089277A1 (English Translation) in view of Niewiadomski (US 11079245 B1) in view of Yamanaka (US 20070263544 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Mund and Niewiadomski teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Mund and Niewiadomski do not explicitly teach wherein a cost of a path between the pair of nodes is retrieved from a matrix or determined based on the matrix.
However, Yamanaka does teach wherein a cost of a path between the pair of nodes is retrieved from a matrix or determined based on the matrix (A cost between a pair of nodes is obtained from a matrix. see at least [¶018]).
Yamanaka would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of determining the shortest path. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mund and Niewiadomski to use the technique of having a cost of a path between the pair of nodes is retrieved from a matrix or determined based on the matrix as taught by Yamanaka. Doing so would lead to determining the shortest possible path (see at least [¶018]).
Claims 8, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mund WO2012089277A1 (English Translation) in view of Niewiadomski (US 11079245 B1) in view of Zhang (US 20240152517 A1).
Regarding Claims 8, 16 and 19, Mund and Niewiadomski teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 14 and 18 as shown above, furthermore, Niewiadomski teaches determining a subset of the set of nodes, the subset of nodes including the central node (Determining a subset of nodes, with the subset of nodes including a central node. see at least [Column 5-6, Lines 52-22, Column 9-10, Lines 3-61 & FIG 4]);
determining a subset of the set of roads of the network, the subset of roads including all roads directly connecting the nodes of the subset (Determining a subset of roads associated with the nodes from the road network, the subset of roads includes roads that connect to the nodes of the subset. see at least [Column 5-6, Lines 52-22, Column 9-10, Lines 3-61 & FIG 4]);
determining a set of paths, wherein each path of the set of paths comprises one or more roads of the subset of roads and connects two nodes of the subset of nodes (Determining a set of paths/edges that comprise of roads and connect two nodes in the subset of nodes. see at least [Column 5-6, Lines 52-22, Column 9-10, Lines 3-61 & FIG 4]);
Mund and Niewiadomski do not explicitly teach and determining a subset of the set of paths, wherein each path in the subset has a cost lower than or equal to any other path between a same starting node of the path and a same target node of the path.
However, Zhang does teach and determining a subset of the set of paths, wherein each path in the subset has a cost lower than or equal to any other path between a same starting node of the path and a same target node of the path (Determining for the subset of the set of paths, where each path in the subset has a cost lower than or equal to other paths between the start and end node. see at least [¶03, 036-037 & 087]).
Zhang would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of determining the shortest path. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mund and Niewiadomski to use the technique to determining a subset of the set of paths, wherein each path in the subset has a cost lower than or equal to any other path between a same starting node of the path and a same target node of the path as taught by Zhang. Doing so would lead to finding the shortest path between a starting and ending node (see at least [¶031]).
Claims 9, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mund WO2012089277A1 (English Translation) in view of Niewiadomski (US 11079245 B1) in view of Zhang (US 2024152517 A1) in view of Chen (US 20250035453 A1).
Regarding Claims 9, 17 and 20, Mund, Niewiadomski and Zhang teach all of the limitations of claims 8, 16 and 19 as shown above, Mund, Niewiadomski and Zhang do not explicitly for each available maneuver at the central node, selecting, from all paths of the subset of paths including the maneuver, the path having the highest costs.
However, Chen does teach for each available maneuver at the central node, selecting, from all paths of the subset of paths including the maneuver, the path having the highest costs (Selecting the path having the highest cost/value, from all the available paths that include the maneuver. This highest path is selected as the penalty value leads to the highest possible total path value possible allowed being choosen. see at least [¶011, 026-027 & 054]).
Chen would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of maneuver navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mund and Niewiadomski to use the technique of for each available maneuver at the central node, selecting, from all paths of the subset of paths including the maneuver, the path having the highest costs by Chen. Doing so would lead to selection of the best path even with modified maneuver values (see at least [¶027]).
Furthermore, Mund teaches and updating the value associated with the maneuver based on the cost of the selected path (Changing the value associated with a maneuver is based on the cost/time associated with the selected path/trace. see at least [¶011-012, 024, 026, 032 & 038]).
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mund WO2012089277A1 (English Translation) in view of Niewiadomski (US 11079245 B1) in view of Chen (US 20250035453 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Mund and Niewiadomski teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Mund and Niewiadomski do not explicitly teach wherein changing the value does not decrease the value.
Chen does teach changing the value does not decrease the value (Changing the value does not decrease the value as the penalty value increases the value. see at least [¶011-012 & 025-027]).
Chen would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of maneuver navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mund and Niewiadomski to use the technique of changing the value does not decrease the value as taught by Chen. Doing so would lead to selection of the best path even with modified maneuver values (see at least [¶027]).
Regarding Claim 15, Mund and Niewiadomski teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as shown above, Mund and Niewiadomski do not explicitly teach when the respective maneuver is not part of the selected path, the value associated with the respective maneuver is not changed.
Chen does teach when the respective maneuver is not part of the selected path, the value associated with the respective maneuver is not changed (When a maneuver is not part of the selected path, the value of the maneuver is not changed/impacted by the penalty value. see at least [¶011-012 & 025-027]).
Chen would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of maneuver navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Mund and Niewiadomski to use the technique of when the respective maneuver is not part of the selected path, the value associated with the respective maneuver is not changed as taught by Chen. Doing so would lead to selection of the best path even with modified maneuver values or non-modified maneuver values (see at least [¶027]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SELECTIVELY QUALIFYING TRAJECTORIES IN REGARDS TO A DETERMINATION OF TRAVEL TIME FOR A MANEUVER (US 20170146355 A1)
PROVIDING COST INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH INTERSECTIONS (US 20120029800 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)-272-3752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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,
Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821. 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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights