US 11473925

US Patent 11473925: Dynamic Estimation and Predictive Route Generation

Title: Method and system for dynamic estimation and predictive route generation
Assignee: Bluestone Ventures Inc
Inventors: Michael Sheha, Angie Sheha, Stephen Petilli, Arun Yarlagadda
Filing Date: May 17, 2021
Issue Date: October 18, 2022
Abstract: The patent describes methods and systems for dynamically estimating and predicting routes using discrete location updates from various mobile devices. The goal is to graphically show a mobile device's path on a known map network. The invention also provides additional route information, such as distance traveled and elapsed time, and allows users to modify location points in a route planner or save generated routes based on preferences for later use.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

This patent includes two independent claims, Claim 1 and Claim 9.

Claim 1 (Method for dynamic route estimation):
This claim describes a method for creating an estimated route for a mobile device. It involves:

1. Receiving discrete location updates from a mobile device.
2. Using a computing device to determine the most likely position on a map for each location update. This is done by "snapping" the location update to the nearest point or segment on the map's network of paths, considering that both the mobile device's location and the map data can have errors.
3. Calculating a dynamic estimated route between at least two of these "snapped-to" location points. This calculation uses a set of route preferences specific to the mobile device and the type of map data being used (e.g., road, nautical).
4. Displaying the calculated estimated route on a map, along with the location points.
5. Providing additional details about the route, such as the total distance traveled and elapsed time.
6. Allowing the user to save the estimated route and/or location history to a local storage or a remote server.

Claim 9 (System for dynamic route estimation):
This claim describes a system that performs the method outlined in Claim 1. The system includes:

1. A mobile computing device with a positioning device (like GPS) that sends discrete location updates.
2. A server system that receives these location updates.
3. A component within the server system that processes the location updates. This component identifies the most likely position on the map for each update by "snapping" it to the nearest map network path, considering potential errors in both the location data and the map.
4. The server system also calculates a dynamic estimated route between at least two of these "snapped-to" points, using specific route preferences and map data types.
5. A display component that shows the estimated route and location points.
6. A component to provide route metrics (like distance and time) and to save the estimated route or location history to a local or remote storage.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:

As of April 26, 2026, a search of the CAFC 2026 dockets for US patent 11473925 did not yield specific information regarding any litigation involving this patent. The search results provided general access points and scheduled cases for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but no direct dockets for this patent number in 2026. Therefore, there is no authoritative information to confirm or deny its presence in CAFC 2026 dockets at this time.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 11473925 across multiple sources.

Let me dig deeper into the specific cases and whether '11473925 was asserted.

Litigation Involving US Patent 11,473,925

Answer summary

Based on my searches of litigation aggregators (Unified Patents litigation portal, RPX Insight, Justia Dockets, CourtListener/RECAP, Docket Alarm, PACER Monitor) and the litigation link on the patent's own Google Patents page, I identified one district court case tied to this patent's family in which the '925 patent is associated, plus related family litigation. I did not find any CAFC appeal, ITC action, or additional district court case naming US 11,473,925 literally. I was unable to confirm from the publicly available sources that the '925 patent itself is one of the asserted patents in the Google case (the complaint excerpts I could retrieve identify the asserted patents-in-suit as the '341, '337, and '208 patents). Details below, with that caveat stated plainly.

Case 1 — Bluestone Ventures, Inc. v. Google LLC (the case linked to the '925 patent's family)

Grounds for associating this case with US 11,473,925:

• The Google Patents page for US 11,473,925 itself carries a "Family has litigation" entry and a "US case filed in Texas Western District Court" link to https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/7%3A25-cv-00569.
• Bluestone Ventures, Inc. is the owner of record of the '925 patent (Reel 060161/0010), and Raymond W. Mort, III (The Mort Law Firm) is plaintiff's counsel of record — consistent with the family's assertion campaigns.

Caveat (important): A third-party complaint analysis of 7:25-cv-00569 identifies the "Patents-in-Suit" / "Asserted Patents" as the '341 patent (US 9,746,341), the '337 patent (US 10,274,337), and the '208 patent (US 10,551,208) — all members of the same priority family (priority date April 10, 2002) as the '925 patent, but distinct patent documents. I could not retrieve a source confirming that US 11,473,925 is expressly named as an asserted patent in that complaint. Because the complaint is 168 pages and I could only access excerpts, I cannot rule out that the '925 patent is also asserted, but I will not assert that it is.

Related family litigation (does NOT involve the '925 patent itself)

These cases assert other patents in the same continuation family. They are relevant context for the assertion history but should not be attributed to US 11,473,925.

Note: The '925 patent issued October 18, 2022 — after the 2021 Uber filings — so it structurally could not have been asserted in those cases.

Related PTAB proceeding (not district court litigation, but part of the same dispute)

• Google LLC v. Bluestone Ventures Inc, IPR2026-00418, filed July 30, 2026, status Pending. Per the previously generated sections of this analysis, this is the first AIA trial challenge to the '925 patent. This is a PTAB proceeding, not a court case, but it arises directly from the Bluestone–Google dispute.

Explicit non-findings (so the record is clear)

• No CAFC appeal involving US 11,473,925 was found (consistent with the earlier-generated section noting no CAFC 2026 dockets for this patent).
• No ITC Section 337 investigation involving US 11,473,925 was found.
• No other district court case naming US 11,473,925 was found beyond the family association with 7:25-cv-00569 described above.

⚠️ Contradiction flag

There is an internal date inconsistency between the prior sections and the current task instructions that I am obligated to surface:

• The system prompt states today's date is 2026-09-22.
• The current task states "Current Date: April 26, 2026."
• The previously generated PTAB and Strategic Summary sections are dated "as of 2026-07-31" and describe IPR2026-00418 as filed July 30, 2026 — a date later than the "April 26, 2026" in the task header.

These cannot all be simultaneously correct. If the operative date is April 26, 2026, then the IPR2026-00418 filing (July 30, 2026) and the "as of 2026-07-31" summary are anachronistic and should be reconciled before relying on them. I am not auto-correcting any of these dates; I flag them for your review.

Bottom line for a defendant

The only court case you need to track is Bluestone Ventures, Inc. v. Google LLC, 7:25-cv-00569 (W.D. Tex.), filed December 12, 2025 and still in its early pleading stages. Whether the '925 patent is among the asserted patents in that complaint should be verified against the full complaint (Dkt. 1) and the plaintiff's infringement contentions, which were not publicly available to me. The '925 patent's assertion footprint to date is limited to this Google dispute and the related IPR2026-00418; the earlier Uber suits involved sibling family patents, not the '925.

Proceedings overview

Currently, there is one active AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11473925, IPR2026-00418, which is in its very early "Pending" stage. This means the patent's claims remain untested by PTAB final decisions, and all claims are currently considered patentable for defensive purposes, though a challenge is underway.

IPR2026-00418 — Google LLC v. Bluestone Ventures Inc

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-07-30
• Status: Pending. This proceeding was filed very recently, and the PTAB has not yet made a decision on whether to institute a trial.
• Judge panel: Not yet publicly assigned or available, as the proceeding is in its preliminary stages.
• Petition grounds: Details of the specific claims challenged, prior art cited, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not yet publicly available without access to the full petition document.
• Institution decision: No institution decision has been issued yet due to the recent filing date. The PTAB has a statutory deadline of 6 months from the filing of the preliminary response (or waiver thereof) to decide whether to institute a trial.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable; a Final Written Decision can only be issued after institution.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement or termination has occurred.
• Appeal: No appeal has occurred.
• Defensive value: This IPR is in its infancy. For a defendant, this means the patent's claims are currently undergoing a challenge, but no claims have been invalidated or confirmed patentable by the PTAB yet. The outcome of this IPR will be significant in determining the patent's strength.

Strategic summary

As of 2026-07-31, all claims of US11473925 remain untested by a PTAB final written decision. The patent is currently facing its first challenge via IPR2026-00418, initiated by Google LLC. Since this IPR was filed only yesterday, on 2026-07-30, no claims have been canceled or sustained, and the patent owner (Bluestone Ventures Inc) has not yet been required to defend its claims before a PTAB panel at trial. Therefore, all claims of US11473925 are currently considered patentable and untested in the PTAB context.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since the IPR is so new, there are no estoppel implications yet. If Google LLC (or its privies) were to be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), it would only occur if a Final Written Decision were to be issued and a claim found unpatentable or patentable. Until then, Google LLC is free to pursue all grounds it raised or reasonably could have raised in the petition. For any other defendant, all prior art grounds remain available for challenge.

The filing of IPR2026-00418 by Google LLC represents the first publicly known challenge to this patent at the PTAB. This signals that at least one major entity views the patent as a potential threat and believes there are valid grounds for challenging its claims.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US11473925:

• Monitor IPR2026-00418 closely: Given its very recent filing, the key upcoming milestone will be the institution decision. This decision is typically due approximately 6 months after the Patent Owner files its preliminary response (or waives its right to do so). Track the PTAB E2E system for updates on the Patent Owner's preliminary response filing and the subsequent institution decision deadline.
• Analyze the IPR Petition: If possible, obtain and review Google LLC's petition for IPR2026-00418 to understand the specific claims being challenged and the prior art cited. This will provide insight into the potential vulnerabilities of the patent's claims and inform any defensive strategies.
• Consider parallel challenges: If the claims targeted in IPR2026-00418 are central to an asserted infringement, evaluate whether to join the IPR (if permissible and strategically advantageous) or to file a separate IPR with different grounds or claims, bearing in mind the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) time bar if a complaint has already been served.
• Absence of prior PTAB activity: The fact that this is the first IPR filed on US11473925 could be interpreted in various ways. It might suggest that the patent has not been broadly asserted previously, or that prior assertions have not led to PTAB challenges. However, the involvement of a large entity like Google LLC suggests a significant interest in challenging the patent's validity.

Inventors

• Michael Sheha: Employer at filing is Bluestone Ventures Inc. (based on assignment record).
• Angie Sheha: Employer at filing is Bluestone Ventures Inc. (based on assignment record).
• Stephen Petilli: Employer at filing is Bluestone Ventures Inc. (based on assignment record).
• Arun Yarlagadda: Employer at filing is Bluestone Ventures Inc. (based on assignment record).

Original assignee

The original assignee, as named on the issued patent, is Bluestone Ventures Inc..

It appears there are several entities named "Bluestone Ventures Inc." or similar, which makes identification challenging.

• Bluestone Ventures Inc. (Delaware address 100 DELAWARE AVE, SUITE 1600, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, 19801): This is the entity listed as the assignee on the patent. This address is a known registered agent service address often used by shell entities. No clear product or operating business directly associated with the claims of US11473925 (dynamic route estimation) could be definitively linked to this specific Delaware entity through my search.
• Bluestone Ventures (Vancouver, Canada - construction & development): This company is a construction and development firm in British Columbia, Canada, serving the lower mainland since 2009. They focus on quality work and personalized service in construction. This company's business does not align with the patent's claims.
• BlueStone Venture Partners (Santa Fe, New Mexico - venture capital): This firm, founded in 2018, invests in early and later-stage companies, primarily in life sciences, medical devices, and healthcare IT. This company's business does not align with the patent's claims.
• Bluestone Resources Inc. (Mining company): This is a Canadian mining company that was acquired by Aura Minerals Inc. in January 2025. Its business does not align with the patent's claims.
• Bluestone Equity Partners (New York - private equity in Sports, Media & Entertainment): This firm invests in the global Sports, Media & Entertainment industry. Its business does not align with the patent's claims.
• Bluestone Investment Inc. (Plaintiff in litigation in California): This entity is a plaintiff in a legal case, Bluestone Investment Inc. et al v. Hu et al, filed in the Northern District of California (Case 3:25-cv-05396) as of October 2025. The nature of this case seems to be related to an investment scheme. This is a separate entity from the patent assignee.
• Bluestone Communications (Wilmington, DE - corporate office P.O. Box 7499. 1 Righter Parkway, Suite 300): This company provides communication services and has an office in Wilmington, DE, but at a different address. Its business is communications infrastructure, not dynamic route estimation.
• Bluestone Corporation (Medical equipment/consumables): This company offers medical equipment and consumables. Its business does not align with the patent's claims.

The entity "Bluestone Ventures Inc." that is the assignee of US11473925 has a Delaware registered agent address (100 DELAWARE AVE, SUITE 1600, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, 19801) as its correspondent address in the USPTO assignment record. This address is commonly used by shell entities. Based on the search, there is no evidence that this specific "Bluestone Ventures Inc." (the patent assignee) ships a product embodying the claims of US11473925 or operates a direct business related to dynamic route estimation.

Therefore:

• Shipped a product embodying the claims: Unclear; no direct evidence found for this specific Delaware-registered "Bluestone Ventures Inc."
• Primary line of business: Unclear; no operating business directly related to the patent's claims could be definitively identified for this specific entity. The name "Ventures Inc." combined with the registered agent address suggests it might be a holding or licensing entity.
• Current status: Operating as a Delaware corporation (no dissolution or bankruptcy found, though a Florida entity with a similar name is inactive), but its operational nature in relation to the patent is unclear. It has been involved in patent assertion, as indicated by the prior art references from Google Patents (related to the litigation in Texas Western District Court).

Assignment timeline

• 2021-05-17 (executed) / recorded 2021-05-17 — Reel 060161/0010
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: YARLAGADDA, ARUN; PETILLI, STEPHEN; SHEHA, ANGIE; SHEHA, MICHAEL (Inventors)
  • Assignee: BLUESTONE VENTURES, INC.
  • Correspondent: BLUESTONE VENTURES, INC.; 100 DELAWARE AVE, SUITE 1600, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, 19801.
  • Context: Initial assignment from inventors to the corporate entity.

The USPTO Patent Assignment Search shows only this single initial assignment for US11473925. This indicates that Bluestone Ventures Inc. is the current owner of record according to the USPTO assignment database.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11473925
    2002 : Priority date of provisional application
    2021 : Inventors assign to Bluestone Ventures Inc
    2022 : Patent issued to Bluestone Ventures Inc
    2025 : US litigation filed in Texas Western Dist.
    2026 : IPR2026-00418 filed by Google LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The original assignee, Bluestone Ventures Inc., uses "Ventures Inc." in its name and has a registered agent address (100 DELAWARE AVE, SUITE 1600, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, 19801) listed as its correspondent address on the assignment record (Reel 060161/0010). No active product-shipping business related to the patent's technology could be definitively identified for this specific entity. The listed address is a common registered agent service.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. While Bluestone Ventures Inc. itself might not be on a public NPE list as of the provided information, the Google Patents page explicitly states "US case filed in Texas Western District Court" with case number 7:25-cv-00569, indicating Bluestone Ventures Inc. (or its legal family) is engaged in patent assertion. Furthermore, a search result from July 9, 2021, mentioned "Bluestone Ventures Inc. Uber Technologies, Inc. 9921077 · 10502583 · 2:21-cv-00240, Filed", suggesting prior assertion activity against Uber related to other patents in the same family.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. The only recorded assignment is the initial one from inventors to Bluestone Ventures Inc., where Bluestone Ventures Inc. itself is listed as the correspondent (Reel 060161/0010). Without further assignments, it's not possible to determine if a specific attorney or recording firm has recurred. However, the use of the assignee's corporate address (which appears to be a registered agent) as the correspondent is a flag in itself.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There is only one recorded assignment for this patent.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. The initial assignment from inventors to Bluestone Ventures Inc. occurred on 2021-05-17 (Reel 060161/0010). The patent was issued on 2022-10-18. The US case in Texas Western District Court 7:25-cv-00569 was filed in 2025 (specific date not given, but after the patent issued). There isn't an assignment dated within 6 months before this 2025 litigation. However, the patent family has seen litigation activity since at least July 2021 involving Bluestone Ventures Inc. (e.g., against Uber), which predates the issuance of this specific patent but indicates an assertion strategy.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No evidence of bankruptcy for Bluestone Ventures Inc. was found.
7. Privateering — Unclear. There is no publicly available information (e.g., SEC filings or specific news coverage) to suggest that Bluestone Ventures Inc. is acting on behalf of an operating company.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is currently owned by Bluestone Ventures Inc. and is actively asserted.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is based on several strong signals. The assignee, Bluestone Ventures Inc., uses a name pattern common for licensing entities and lists a registered agent service address (100 DELAWARE AVE, SUITE 1600, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, 19801) as its correspondent for the assignment (Reel 060161/0010). Furthermore, the Google Patents information and search results confirm that Bluestone Ventures Inc. is actively involved in litigation, indicating patent assertion activity. No evidence suggests Bluestone Ventures Inc. (the patent owner) is an operating company producing products embodying the claims of US11473925.

For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center search for US11473925: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patents/[11473925](/patent/11473925)

I'll research the prior-art citations of US 11473925 directly. Let me start with several targeted searches.

The general searches returned noise. Let me target patent-database pages that reproduce the front-page citations.

Let me try to retrieve the front-page citation list directly from patent full-text sources.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,473,925 B2

0. Up-front verification and a necessary honesty caveat

Patent identified (literal ID, no auto-correction): US 11473925 → US 11,473,925 B2, "Method and system for dynamic estimation and predictive route generation," application 17/322,839, filed 2021-05-17, granted 2022-10-18, priority 2002-04-10, assignee Bluestone Ventures Inc, inventors Michael Sheha, Angie Sheha, Stephen Petilli, Arun Yargadda, status Expired – Lifetime, Google-listed "anticipated expiration 2023-04-10." Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11473925/en

Critical caveat before the citation table: the authoritative fetch you supplied includes the (56)-adjacent metadata ("Prior art keywords: travel, location, route, mobile device, possible route"), the Definitions, classifications, abstract and description — but it does not contain the front-page "(56) References Cited" table. My searches for that specific citation list returned unrelated documents (the index appears to have conflated other patents' PDFs — e.g., US 11,345,739, US 10,188,385, FR2928706A1 — none of which are US 11473925). Because I could not retrieve the actual bibliography of record, I will not enumerate a fabricated "References Cited" list. Per the operating rules, I am stating this explicitly rather than guessing. Everything below is therefore split into (A) prior art I can support from the authoritative text, (B) documents that are not prior art, and (C) a verification plan for the actual citation table.

A. Prior art established by the patent's own text (applicant-admitted prior art)

These are the only prior-art disclosures I can cite with certainty, because they appear in the patent's own Background. Under Federal Circuit law, statements in the specification about what was "well known" are admissions usable as prior art under § 102/§ 103. They are characterizations, not document citations.

§ 102 takeaway: No single admitted-art item A1–A8 discloses the entire combination recited in Claim 1 or Claim 9. A1–A3 give the discrete updates and straight-line display; A4–A6 give routing + snapping. The alleged novelty is the union — computing an estimated route along the map network between consecutive snapped-to points, dynamically, subject to device-specific preferences. That union is not in any one admitted reference, so § 102 anticipation by admitted art alone is weak; § 103 is the viable attack (consistent with the Obviousness section already generated — I build on, and do not repeat, that analysis). The strongest § 102 candidates would be single references that disclose probe-vehicle map-matching of a breadcrumb trail plus route computation between consecutive matched points, but I have not been able to verify which, if any, such reference is on the face of this patent.

B. Documents that are not prior art (and why) — important to avoid a false § 102 theory

The § 120 chain in the patent is exhaustive and self-identifying:

US 10/410,740 (2003-04-10, now US 7,565,155) → 12/484,091 (US 7,881,730) → 12/929,458 (US 8,095,152) → 13/346,265 (US 8,577,390) → 14/067,415 (US 9,354,069) → 14/997,521 (US 9,607,346) → 15/435,283 (US 9,746,341) → 15/657,141 (US 9,921,077) → 15/887,989 (US 10,274,337) → 16/377,228 (US 10,502,583) → 16/517,566 (US 10,551,208) → 16/747,460 (US 10,677,608) → 16/862,168 (US 10,996,071) → 17/246,628 (US 11,346,684) → 17/322,839 (US 11,473,925) → later US 11,619,513 (app. 17/739,142). Provisional basis: 60/371,941, filed 2002-04-10.

Consequences:

1. Every family member listed above is the same inventive entity with the same effective filing date (2002-04-10). None can be § 102(a)/(b) or § 102(a)(2) art against US 11473925. Any analysis that cites US 10,274,337, US 10,551,208, US 10,677,608, US 10,996,071, or US 11,619,513 as "prior art" to this patent is legally wrong — those are siblings, not references. (This matters because the Texas complaint discussed below asserts the '337, '208 and '513 patents — they are co-family, not art against one another.)
2. The critical date for § 102 is 2002-04-10. Any third-party publication after that date is presumptively not § 102(a)/(b) art, and only qualifying earlier-filed US applications/publications could be § 102(a)(2) art. This is the single most useful filter for screening whatever citation table turns out to be on the face of the patent.
3. Term/expiry note (strategic, from the Google Patents record): "Anticipated expiration 2023-04-10" and status "Expired – Lifetime" imply a 20-year term running from the 2003-04-10 parent filing. If correct (Google disclaims the assumption), the enforceable window for this patent is only 2022-10-18 → 2023-04-10, which sharply compresses any past-damages theory. Flagging as an inference, not a legal conclusion.

C. Third-party art surfaced in this session — verify before relying on it

A PTAB petition excerpt retrieved during this search (Google as petitioner; attorney docket 19473-0363IP1) argues over a "Behr" reference as primary art (a navigation server with a route calculator, map database, on-line traffic/map updater, non-proprietary natural-language route descriptions). It is captioned "IPR of U.S. Pat. No.: 6,292,743" — a different patent number, not in the US 11473925 family chain above. Under the strict literal-ID rule, that petition must not be imported as a citation of record against US 11473925. I mention it only because it shows the type of primary art a challenger is using against this general subject matter (server-side route calculation on a map database with real-time restriction/traffic inputs) — the same architecture that would be the natural § 103 backbone against Claims 1(c) and 9(4). Treat it as a lead, not a citation.

D. What the actual "References Cited" list must be checked against (where to get it)

Because the authoritative fetch omitted the (56) table, the following are the exact places the citation list lives. Any substitution of a similar patent number is prohibited by the literal-ID rule:

1. Google Patents, US11473925B2, sections "Patent Citations," "Cited By," and "Similar Documents" — https://patents.google.com/patent/US11473925/en
2. USPTO PatentCenter for application 17/322,839 (the PTO-filed IDS/form PTO-892 and the printed "References Cited") — https://patentcenter.uspto.gov
3. The granted patent PDF on patentimages (front-page "(56) References Cited" box) — locate via the PDF link on the Google Patents page above.
4. Any sibling in the chain (e.g., US 10,274,337, US 10,551,208, US 10,677,608, US 10,996,071, US 11,346,684, US 11,619,513). Because they share the identical specification, their (56) lists are substantially the same; checking one gives you the family's citation set economically.

How to map whichever references appear there to § 102 (method I would apply once the list is in hand):

Only a reference hitting the third row alone could anticipate Claim 1 or Claim 9 as a whole; everything above it is § 103 fodder.

E. Contradictions and data-quality flags (as instructed)

1. Date contradiction in the previously generated sections. The task states the current date is April 26, 2026, yet the "PTAB challenges" section asserts IPR2026-00418 was filed 2026-07-30 and the strategic summary is written "as of 2026-07-31." An IPR cannot be filed three months in the future relative to today. Either the current date or the IPR filing/date-stamp is wrong. The "litigation summary" section carries the same problem (it labels its findings "as of April 26, 2026" while describing a 2025 filed case and then references a 2026-07-31 posture). Flagged as unresolved; do not rely on the IPR filing date until confirmed in PTAB E2E.
2. Assignee/ownership. The "Assignment history" section notes Bluestone Ventures Inc. at a Wilmington, DE registered-agent address (Reel 060161/0010) while the Unified Patents record for a sibling (US 2012/0202530 A1) lists original assignee "Telecommunication Systems Inc" and the patentleaderboard page places inventor Michael A. Sheha at "Telecommunication Systems." This is a genuine discrepancy about the chain of title in the family; it does not affect prior-art analysis but should be reconciled before any ownership-dependent step.
3. Litigation identity. The Texas Western District Court case the Google Patents page cites for this family is 7:25-cv-00569, and the retrieved complaint (txwd 1172879830) is Bluestone Ventures v. Google asserting the '337, '208 and '513 patents — i.e., siblings, not US 11473925 itself. The earlier-generated "Litigation summary" correctly lists the case number but leaves plaintiff/defendant as "not explicitly stated"; the complaint excerpt resolves them.

Bottom line

• I cannot lawfully present a verified "References Cited" table for US 11473925 from this session's data, and I am not going to invent one — the authoritative fetch omitted the (56) box and my searches returned mis-indexed, unrelated patents.
• What is supportable: the applicant-admitted prior art (AVL/LBS/fleet tracking, breadcrumb trails, true routing with preferences, map-data error and snapping, peer-to-server transfer), which individually maps onto Claim 1 elements (a)–(f) and Claim 9 §§1–6 but does not anticipate either independent claim alone.
• The realistic § 102 hunt is for a single pre-2002-04-10 probe-vehicle map-matching-plus-routing reference; short of that, this family is a § 103 case, as the prior Obviousness section concluded. The most efficient way to complete the § 102 screen is to pull the (56) list from any sibling patent's front page (identical spec) or from PatentCenter for application 17/322,839, then apply the critical-date filter (2002-04-10) and the row-by-row mapping in section D.

The obviousness of US patent 11473925 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 can be analyzed by combining known elements from the prior art, as acknowledged within the patent itself and suggested by the provided "Prior art keywords." A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in the field of navigation, mapping, and vehicle tracking would have been motivated to combine these known elements to address the identified limitations of existing systems.

Acknowledged Prior Art (from US11473925 Background):

The patent's background section explicitly states that various components and concepts were well-known prior to the invention:

• Computerized mapping software: Widely used for calculating routes and viewing geographical areas with spatial content like roadways and addresses [cite: Description].
• Global Positioning System (GPS) devices: Used with mapping programs for applications such as personal navigation [cite: Description].
• Real-time communication networks: Capable of transferring voice and data from mobile devices (e.g., wireless phones, telemetry devices) to other devices, mobile or stationary [cite: Description].
• GPS devices with wireless modems: Able to wirelessly transfer position coordinates (latitude, longitude) to a computer or server for real-time viewing or later retrieval [cite: Description].
• Integrated applications: Combining mapping, real-time communication, and position devices, known by terminologies such as Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL), Location-Based Services (LBS), and Fleet Tracking Systems [cite: Description].
• Conventional AVL systems: Typically involve a positioning device sending location information at discrete time intervals to a computer for viewing [cite: Description].
• "Breadcrumb trail": The monitoring or tracking of real-time or historical location information, illustrating current and previous locations of a mobile device as discrete points [cite: Description].
• "True routing applications": Include a network of paths used with origin and stop points to determine a specific route along said network paths [cite: Description].
• Positional error: Both mobile devices (e.g., GPS receivers, 2-15 meters) and map data (e.g., road segments, 2-50 meters) inherently have positional error [cite: Description].

Problem with Conventional Systems (from US11473925 Background):

The patent identifies a key problem with prior art "breadcrumb trails": they "only provides discrete location information over a specified period of time" and "does not provide the user with sufficient information about the mobile device's actual or estimated route during the course of its travels." Specifically, "How the mobile device traveled along the underling routable network infrastructure, such as roads, highways, exit ramps, etc., from point-to-point is not provided in prior art" [cite: Description]. Conventional systems would sometimes "associate the term ‘route’ with a breadcrumb trail that directly connects discrete points with straight lines, but this is not an accurate use of the term" [cite: Description].

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

The independent claims (Claim 1 and Claim 9) of US11473925 focus on generating a dynamic estimated route along a known network path from discrete location updates, "snapping" these updates to the map, applying route preferences, and providing associated metrics and planning capabilities.

Combination of Prior Art References:
A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the following known prior art elements:

1. Mobile device location tracking: As exemplified by AVL, LBS, and Fleet Tracking Systems, which receive discrete location updates from mobile devices [cite: Description].
2. Mapping software and true routing applications: Known for calculating routes between an origin and a destination along a network of paths (e.g., road networks) using various route preferences (e.g., shortest, fastest, avoid highways) [cite: Description].
3. Map-matching/snapping techniques: Common in navigation systems to correlate a raw GPS position (with inherent error) to the most likely position on a known road network (also with inherent error) [cite: Description].
4. Display of route information: Standard in mapping and navigation applications [cite: Description].
5. Calculation of route metrics: Standard output of routing algorithms (e.g., distance, time) [cite: Description].
6. Route planning and saving features: Typical functions found in mapping and navigation software [cite: Description].

Motivation to Combine:
The explicit problem articulated in the patent's background—that conventional "breadcrumb trails" merely showed discrete points and not the actual or estimated route along the road network—would have provided strong motivation for a PHOSITA to combine existing technologies. The goal would be to enhance the utility and accuracy of mobile device tracking systems by providing meaningful route information. Specifically:

• Improving Visualization and Accuracy: A PHOSITA would be motivated to move beyond simplistic straight-line connections between discrete location points by using "true routing applications" to show how a mobile device likely traveled along actual roads. This directly addresses the stated deficiency of prior art breadcrumb trails [cite: Description].
• Extracting Route Metrics: Once a route along a road network is established (even if estimated), the inherent capabilities of "true routing applications" to calculate metrics like total distance traveled and elapsed time would be immediately apparent and desired for applications like fleet management or personal travel logging [cite: Description].
• Correcting for Errors: Given that both location updates and map data have positional errors, a PHOSITA would naturally employ known "snapping" techniques to ensure that the estimated route accurately reflects travel on the underlying road network, thereby making the route calculations more precise [cite: Description].
• Enhancing Management Capabilities: For fleet tracking, dispatching, or personal travel analysis, the ability to store, modify, and analyze these estimated routes, and even predict future movement, would be an obvious and desirable extension of existing systems.

Reasoning for Obviousness of Claims 1 and 9:

Considering a PHOSITA familiar with the aforementioned prior art, the steps outlined in Claims 1 and 9 would be obvious:

1. Receiving discrete location updates from a mobile device: This is explicitly described as conventional practice in AVL and fleet tracking systems [cite: Description].
2. Determining the most likely position on a map ("snapping"): Given that both GPS data and map data have errors, and the objective is to generate a route on a map, it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to use known map-matching or "snap-to" algorithms (e.g., "point on a road nearest to the location update point" as described in the patent in relation to FIG. 4A) to accurately place the mobile device's reported location onto the underlying road network [cite: Description].
3. Calculating a dynamic estimated route between "snapped-to" location points using route preferences: With discrete, snapped-to points and the knowledge of "true routing applications" that calculate routes between origin and destination points along network paths based on "route preferences" (e.g., Driving Speeds, Route Optimization Goals, Road Preferences) [cite: Description], it would be obvious to apply these established routing algorithms between successive snapped-to location points. The "dynamic" aspect simply entails recalculating this route segment as new updates arrive, a natural extension for real-time tracking systems.
4. Displaying the estimated route on a map, along with location points: Displaying routes and points on maps is a fundamental function of existing mapping and navigation software [cite: Description].
5. Providing additional details about the route (distance, elapsed time): Standard routing algorithms inherently calculate metrics such as distance and time. Applying these known calculations to the newly generated estimated routes would be an obvious way to provide "supplemental information" and "route metrics" [cite: Abstract].
6. Allowing saving of the estimated route and/or location history: Saving data, including route plans and history, is a common feature in many software applications, including mapping and tracking tools [cite: Description].

Predictive Routing: The concept of "predictive routing" (estimating future movement) would also be obvious.

• If a destination is known, combining the current snapped location, vehicle vector information (speed, heading, common telemetry in AVL systems), and known routing algorithms to project the path towards the destination is an obvious extension of real-time navigation systems [cite: Description].
• If the destination is unknown, displaying "all possible routes" from the current position at a road network juncture (as described in the patent, e.g., FIG. 9) is an obvious way to provide additional information to the user in a visually comprehensive manner, anticipating future movement until the next update.

Route Planner Capabilities: Allowing modification of location points in a route planner (e.g., changing via points to origin/destination, adding notes, correcting misaligned points) is standard functionality in existing route planning software [cite: Description]. Applying these known tools to the dynamically generated estimated routes or raw location history points would be an obvious design choice to enhance user control and accuracy.

Multi-Device Calculations: Calculating estimated routes for multiple mobile devices to a central point and sorting them by metrics (distance, time, fuel) for dispatching purposes, as described, is an obvious improvement over "Line-Of-Sight (LOS) distance calculations" [cite: Description] in existing fleet tracking systems. A PHOSITA would be motivated to use actual road-network-based routes for more realistic comparisons.

Therefore, the claimed method and system represent an obvious combination of known prior art elements to solve a known problem (providing accurate route information from discrete location updates) using predictable results and established techniques in the field of mapping, navigation, and location-based services.