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
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 19/287,001, filed on 31 July 2025, are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 31 July 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites “provided enhanced information” but should recite – providing enhanced information –.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1-20 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a process, which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), a claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. With respect to mental processes, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
Independent claim 1 recites “ determining two or more previously mapped trail segments of the plurality of segments, forming at least one contiguous path between the current location and the destination”, “determining based on known passibility characteristics of the two or more segments compared to at least one of one or more dimensional or capability parameters associated with a vehicle driven by the user, whether at least one of the contiguous paths is projectedly passible based at least in part on the comparison not indicating an impassible characteristic”, and “identifying a sequence of segments constituting at least one of the at least one projectedly passible paths, responsive to there being the at least one projectedly passible path”. These limitations may be performed in the human mind. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. The guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the instant application, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claim 1 recites the additional elements “receiving a request from a user identifying a destination location and a current location, the request for travel along terrain comprising a plurality of unpaved trail segments leading to the destination” and “receiving, by the one or more processors, floor layout data for at least a first floor of a parking garage”.
Also noted above, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Receiving a request from a user is data gathering. Presenting the sequence to the user is data outputting. Therefore, these additional elements just add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Receiving a request from a user identifying a destination location and a current location, the request for travel along terrain comprising a plurality of unpaved trail segments leading to the destination and presenting the sequence to the user in the vehicle is known in the art, as indicated in the § 103 rejection below. The additional elements, both individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 (a) is directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2-6 further define a previously-identified abstract ideas, i.e., determining whether at least one of the contiguous paths is projectedly passible. However, even as further defined, the previously-identified abstract ideas may still be performed mentally. These claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claims 2-6 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “identifying previously mapped segments of the terrain determined to be projectedly impassible”, which may be performed mentally. Claim 7 does not recite any additional elements. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “identifying and presenting characteristics predefined as creating potentially difficult driving associated with at least one identified segment”. Identifying characteristics predefined as creating potentially difficult driving, may be performed mentally. Presenting the characteristics is extra-solution activity, i.e., data outputting. Presenting the characteristics is also WURC activity, as indicated in the § 103 rejection below. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 further defines a previously-identified abstract ideas, i.e., identifying characteristics predefined as creating potentially difficult driving. However, even as further defined, the previously-identified abstract ideas may still be performed mentally. Claim 9 does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 8.
Claim 10 recites “provided enhanced information, including at least characteristic values or recommendations for proceeding, in the vehicle, responsive to determining that the vehicle is within a predefined proximity to at least one identified characteristic predefined as creating potentially difficult driving”. Determining that the vehicle is within a predefined proximity may be determined mentally. Providing enhanced information is extra-solution activity, i.e., data outputting. Providing enhanced information is also WURC activity, as indicated in the § 103 rejection below. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites “presenting at least one projectedly partially passible path, including at least an indicator of a projectedly impassible characteristic based on the comparison”. Presenting a partially passible path is extra-solution activity, i.e., data outputting. Presenting a partially passible is also WURC activity, as indicated in the § 103 rejection below. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 further defines a previously-identified additional element, i.e., presenting at least one projectedly partially passible path. Presenting the partially passible path, even as further defined, is still extra-solution activity, i.e., data outputting and is also WURC activity, as indicated in the § 103 rejection below. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 11.
Claim 13 recites the additional element “presenting at least one or more difficulty indicators for one or more of the sequence of trail segments comprising the projectedly passible path”. Presenting difficulty indicators is extra-solution activity, i.e., data outputting. Presenting difficulty indicators is also WURC activity, as indicated in the § 103 rejection below. Therefore, claim 13 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 14 and 15 further define a previously-identified additional element, i.e., presenting at least difficulty indicators. Presenting difficulty indicators, even as further defined, is still extra-solution activity, i.e., data outputting and is also WURC activity, as indicated in the § 103 rejection below. Therefore, claims 14 and 15 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 13.
Claims 16 and 17 further define a previously-identified abstract ideas, i.e., determining two or more previously mapped trail segments. However, even as further defined, the previously-identified abstract ideas may still be performed mentally. These claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claims 16 and 17 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 18 recites the additional element “downloading and storing locally at the vehicle at least the segments comprising the sequence of segments”. Downloading and storing segments at the vehicle is extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering. Downloading and storing segments at the vehicle is also WURC activity, as indicated in the § 103 rejection below. Further, downloading and storing segments is a generic computing function performed by a generic computer, e.g., receiving and storing data. Therefore, claim 18 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 19 recites “determining that the vehicle is within a predefined distance of or has reached a trail segment, of the sequence, having at least one characteristic determined to potentially affect passibilty based on the comparison; and presenting the at least one characteristic to the user on a vehicle display as part of an alert”. Determining that the vehicle is within a predefined proximity may be determined mentally. Presenting the characteristic on a vehicle display is, i.e., data outputting. Presenting the characteristic on a vehicle display is also WURC activity, as indicated in the § 103 rejection below. Therefore, claim 19 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20 further defines a previously-identified additional element, i.e., presenting the characteristic on a vehicle display. Presenting the characteristic on a vehicle display, even as further defined, is still extra-solution activity, i.e., data outputting and is also WURC activity, as indicated in the § 103 rejection below. Therefore, claim 20 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 20.
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 1 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsonov (US 2016/0341562 A1) in view of Thai et al. (US 9,726,509 B1, “Thai”).
Regarding claim 1, Samsonov discloses a method of generating a suggested navigation route using off-road trail data provided by a user and teaches:
receiving a request from a user identifying a destination location and a current location, the request for travel along terrain comprising a plurality of unpaved trail segments leading to the destination (user requests navigation assistance from navigation device 10 to ask directions to a destination location, input by the user, from a starting location – see at least ¶ [0025]; user wishes to travel from start point 202 to destination location 204 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0031]; off-road trails 200, 210 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0032]; offroad, unpaved trails – see at least ¶ [0023]);
determining two or more previously mapped trail segments of the plurality of segments, forming at least one contiguous path between the current location and the destination (suggested navigation route may contain only off-road segments – see at least ¶ [0025]);
[ ]; and
[ ]; and
presenting the [path] to the user in the vehicle (navigation device 10 will provide turn-by-turn navigation instructions to the user – see at least ¶ [0027]).
Samsonov fails to teach determining based on known passibility characteristics of the two or more segments compared to at least one of one or more dimensional or capability parameters associated with a vehicle driven by the user, whether at least one of the contiguous paths is projectedly passible based at least in part on the comparison not indicating an impassible characteristic; and identifying a sequence of segments constituting at least one of the at least one projectedly passible paths, responsive to there being the at least one projectedly passible path.
However, Thai discloses profile aware navigation and teaches:
receiving a request from a user identifying a destination location and a current location, [ ] (at 302, origin and destination for a vehicle is determined – see at least Fig. 3 and 5:17-64);
determining two or more [segments], forming at least one contiguous path between the current location and the destination (at 304, multiple routes between the origin and destination are determined – see at least Fig. 3 and 5:17-64);
determining based on known passibility characteristics of the two or more segments compared to at least one of one or more dimensional or capability parameters associated with a vehicle driven by the user, whether at least one of the contiguous paths is projectedly passible based at least in part on the comparison not indicating an impassible characteristic (at 310, passable routes are determined based on road/weather conditions and vehicle attributes in a vehicle profile – see at least Fig. 3 and 5:17-64; e.g., road may be passable for four wheel drive vehicle and not passable for non-four wheel drive vehicle – see at least 4:14-35; e.g., road may be passable for vehicles with chains and not passable for vehicles without chains – see at least 4:14-35); and
identifying a sequence of segments constituting at least one of the at least one projectedly passible paths, responsive to there being the at least one projectedly passible path (at 312 a route is selected based on the route condition and vehicle profile – see at least Fig. 3 and 5:17-64; and
presenting the sequence to the user in the vehicle (at 312, the selected route is presented to a display – see at least Fig. 3 and 5:17-64).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of generating a suggested navigation route using off-road trail data of Samsonov to provide for determining whether a path is passible and presenting the sequence of segments, i.e., path, to the user, as taught by Thai, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for recommending a route which is suitable for being traversed by the vehicle (Thai at 2:29-36).
Regarding claim 16, Samsonov further teaches:
wherein the previously mapped trail segments include one or more segments previously mapped by the user using the vehicle (off-road trail data 36 stored in memory 30 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0020], 0023]).
Regarding claim 17, Samsonov further teaches:
wherein the previously mapped trail segments include one or more segments previously mapped by a second user different from the user (user provides the off-road trail data 36 by loading files, such as files storing tracks in the GPS eXchange (GPX) format, into the memory 30 – see at least ¶ [0023]).
Regarding claim 18, Samsonov further teaches:
downloading and storing locally at the vehicle at least the segments comprising the sequence of segments (user provides the off-road trail data 36 by loading files, such as files storing tracks in the GPS eXchange (GPX) format, into the memory 30 – see at least ¶ [0023]).
Claims 2, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsonov in view of Thai, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu (US 2016/0054144 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Samsonov and Thai fail to teach but Wu discloses a navigation device and method and teaches:
wherein the passibility characteristics include route width (limit data of each section 121 may include a road height limit and a road width limit, which is used to filter the section 121 passable by the vehicle – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0041]; filter based on limit data and dimension data of the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0046]; ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method of generating a suggested navigation route using off-road trail data of Samsonov and Thai to provide route width as a passibility characteristic, as taught by Wu, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for considering basic limitations of the road to determine a road section as passable by a vehicle (Wu at ¶ [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Samsonov and Thai fail to teach but Wu discloses a navigation device and method and teaches:
wherein the passibility characteristics include route height (limit data of each section 121 may include a road height limit and a road width limit, which is used to filter the section 121 passable by the vehicle – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0041]; filter based on limit data and dimension data of the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0046]; ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method of generating a suggested navigation route using off-road trail data of Samsonov and Thai to provide route height as a passibility characteristic, as taught by Wu, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for considering basic limitations of the road to determine a road section as passable by a vehicle (Wu at ¶ [0005]).
Regarding claim 6, Samsonov and Thai fail to teach but Wu discloses a navigation device and method and teaches:
wherein the vehicle parameters include vehicle width and height (limit data of each section 121 may include a road height limit and a road width limit, which is used to filter the section 121 passable by the vehicle – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0041]; filter based on limit data and dimension data of the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0046]; dimension data of vehicle may include height and width – see at least ¶ [0010]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method of generating a suggested navigation route using off-road trail data of Samsonov and Thai to provide route height as a passibility characteristic, as taught by Wu, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for considering basic limitations of the road to determine a road section as passable by a vehicle (Wu at ¶ [0005]).
Claims 4, 5, 8-10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsonov in view of Thai, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Risberg et al. (US 2021/0018923 A1, “Risberg”).
Regarding claim 4, Samsonov and Thai fail to teach but Risberg discloses a method for identifying vehicles that can handle specific road segments and teaches:
wherein the passibility characteristics include at least one of height, width or depth of an obstacle (whether or not vehicle can traverse road segment based on water 114 depth and vehicle features – see at least ¶ [0019]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method of generating a suggested navigation route using off-road trail data of Samsonov and Thai to provide height, width, or depth of an obstacle as a passibility characteristic, as taught by Risberg, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for identifying whether the vehicle is capable of safely traversing a road segment (Risberg at ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 5, Samsonov and Thai fail to teach but Risberg discloses a method for identifying vehicles that can handle specific road segments and teaches:
wherein the vehicle parameters include ground clearance (determine that road segment 112 is not traversable based on ground clearance of vehicle – see at least ¶ [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method of generating a suggested navigation route using off-road trail data of Samsonov and Thai to provide ground clearance as a vehicle parameter, as taught by Risberg, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for identifying whether the vehicle is capable of safely traversing a road segment (Risberg at ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 8, Samsonov and Thai fail to teach but Risberg discloses a method for identifying vehicles that can handle specific road segments and teaches:
identifying and presenting characteristics predefined as creating potentially difficult driving associated with at least one identified segment (off-road paths may be identified and presented in different color or line thickness – see at least ¶ [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method of generating a suggested navigation route using off-road trail data of Samsonov and Thai to provide for identifying and presenting characteristics that create potentially difficult driving, as taught by Risberg, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for warning the driver whether the vehicle is capable of safely traversing a road segment (Risberg at ¶ [0027]).
Regarding claim 9, Risberg further teaches:
identifying the characteristics based on the vehicle parameters compared to the known possibility characteristics (driver may receive notification as the vehicle approaches road segment 112 that it may not be suited for traversing the upcoming road segment – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method of generating a suggested navigation route using off-road trail data of Samsonov, Thai, and Risberg to provide the characteristic on a vehicle display when the vehicle may not be able to traverse the road segment, as taught by Risberg, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for warning the driver whether the vehicle is capable of safely traversing a road segment (Risberg at ¶ [0027]).
Regarding claim 10, Risberg further teaches:
provided enhanced information, including at least characteristic values or recommendations for proceeding, in the vehicle, responsive to determining that the vehicle is within a predefined proximity to at least one identified characteristic predefined as creating potentially difficult driving. (driver may receive notification as the vehicle approaches road segment 112 that it may not be able to traverse the road segment – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0022]; warning information 202 may include aspects of vehicle 200 that render the vehicle unfit for traversing the road segment – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method of generating a suggested navigation route using off-road trail data of Samsonov, Thai, and Risberg to provide enhanced information, as further taught by Risberg, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for warning the driver whether the vehicle is capable of safely traversing a road segment (Risberg at ¶ [0027]).
Regarding claim 19, Samsonov and Thai fail to teach but Risberg discloses a method for identifying vehicles that can handle specific road segments and teaches:
determining that the vehicle is within a predefined distance of or has reached a trail segment, of the sequence, having at least one characteristic determined to potentially affect passibilty based on the comparison; and presenting the at least one characteristic to the user on a vehicle display as part of an alert (whether or not vehicle can traverse road segment based on water 114 depth and vehicle features – see at least ¶ [0019]; driver may receive notification as the vehicle approaches road segment 112 that it may not be able to traverse the road segment if the vehicle does not have the necessary ground clearance – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0022]; warning information 202 may include aspects of vehicle 200 that render the vehicle unfit for traversing the road segment – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method of generating a suggested navigation route using off-road trail data of Samsonov and Thai to provide the characteristic on a vehicle display when the vehicle is within a predefined distance, as taught by Risberg, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would notify the driver to find an alternative route when the vehicle is not capable of traversing a road segment (Risberg at ¶ [0027]).
Regarding claim 20, Risberg further teaches:
wherein the alert includes at least one driving recommendation related to traversing the at least one characteristic in the vehicle (warning may state, for example, “Of the past 100 vehicles similar to yours that approached this road segment, 97 of them turned around and found an alternate route—you may do the same.” – see at least ¶ [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method of generating a suggested navigation route using off-road trail data of Samsonov, Thai, and Risberg to provide a driving recommendation, as further taught by Risberg, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would notify the driver to find an alternative route when the vehicle is not capable of traversing a road segment (Risberg at ¶ [0027]).
Claims 7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsonov in view of Thai, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fischer et al. (US 2020/0200551 A1, “Fischer”).
Regarding claim 7, Samsonov and Thai fail to teach but Fischer discloses methods and systems for generating routes and teaches:
identifying previously mapped segments of the terrain determined to be projectedly impassible (at 3, if no route can be determined by blocking restricted segments, the route may be generated by penalizing restricted segments – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0128]; at 5, the route may be presented with a warning/indication regarding any segments along the route identified as restricted segments – see at least Figs. 5, 8 and ¶ [0128], [0132]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method of generating a suggested navigation route using off-road trail data of Samsonov and Thai to provide for presenting a projectedly partially passible path and an indicator of a projectedly impassible characteristic, as taught by Fischer, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would notify the driver of any portions of the route that conflict with the vehicle (Fischer at ¶ [0020]).
Regarding claim 11, Samsonov and Thai fail to teach but Fischer discloses methods and systems for generating routes and teaches:
presenting at least one projectedly partially passible path (at 2, a route is generated by blocking restricted segments identified by the vehicle profile – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0126]), including at least an indicator of a projectedly impassible characteristic based on the comparison (at 3, if no route can be determined by blocking restricted segments, the route may be generated by penalizing restricted segments – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0128]; at 5, the route may be presented with a warning/indication regarding any segments along the route identified as restricted segments – see at least Figs. 5, 8 and ¶ [0128], [0132]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method of generating a suggested navigation route using off-road trail data of Samsonov and Thai to provide for presenting a projectedly partially passible path and an indicator of a projectedly impassible characteristic, as taught by Fischer, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would notify the driver of any portions of the route that conflict with the vehicle (Fischer at ¶ [0020]).
Regarding claim 12, Fischer further teaches:
wherein the at least one projectedly partially passible path is presented responsive to there not being at least one projectedly passible path (at 3, if no route can be determined by blocking restricted segments, the route may be generated by penalizing restricted segments – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0128]; at 5, the route may be presented with a warning/indication regarding any segments along the route identified as restricted segments – see at least Figs. 5, 8 and ¶ [0128], [0132]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method of generating a suggested navigation route using off-road trail data of Samsonov, Thai, and Fischer to provide for presenting the projectedly partially passible path, as further taught by Fischer, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would notify the driver of any portions of the route that conflict with the vehicle (Fischer at ¶ [0020]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsonov in view of Thai, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koenig et al. (US 2019/0265064 A1, “Koenig”).
Regarding claim 13, Samsonov and Thai fail to teach but Koenig discloses an interactive telemetry, mapping and trip planning system and teaches:
comprising presenting at least one or more difficulty indicators for one or more of the sequence of trail segments comprising the projectedly passible path (trail details may include difficulty score for a trail – see at least Fig. 19 and ¶ [0083], [0104], [0118]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method of generating a suggested navigation route using off-road trail data of Samsonov and Thai to provide for presenting difficulty indicators, as taught by Koenig, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide trail details to a user while planning a route (Koenig at ¶ [0118]).
Regarding claim 14, Koenig further teaches:
wherein at least one of the difficulty indicators is based at least in part on a degree of passibility indicated by the comparison for a given trail segment of the sequence of trail segments (user may select their skill level and available routes will be presented based on skill level – see at least [0073]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method of generating a suggested navigation route using off-road trail data of Samsonov, Thai, and Koenig to provide for presenting difficulty indicators based on passibility, as further taught by Koenig, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide trail details to a user for route planning based on skill level (Koenig at ¶ [0073]).
Regarding claim 15, Koenig further teaches:
wherein at least one of the difficulty indicators is based at least in part on a predefined projected skill level required to traverse at least one of the characteristics of a given trail segment of the sequence of trail segments (planned routes are based on whether the route is passable – see at least [0073]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined method of generating a suggested navigation route using off-road trail data of Samsonov, Thai, and Koenig to provide for presenting difficulty indicators based on skill level, as further taught by Koenig, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide trail details to a user for route planning based on skill level (Koenig at ¶ [0073]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights