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 45-64 are pending in this application.
Claims 45, 58, and 61 are presented as currently amended claims.
No claims are newly presented.
No claims are cancelled.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Lead inventor of applied prior art JP 4130828 B2 is alternatively listed as Yoshioka Mototaka and as Kudo Takahiro depending on the publication source. Both inventors are listed in the pre-grant publication (JP 2006053132 A) and the grant publication (JP 4130828 B2). For clarity, the reference will be referred to as Yoshioka herein to be consistent with Applicant’s use and the Espacenet publication. The change of reference name is not a change in the art applied.
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 6, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 45, 48-53, 58, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire (US 20200240808 A1) in view of Maile et al. (“Final Task Report, Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance System Limited to Stop Sign and Traffic Signal Violations (CICAS-V): Task 10 Final Report: Integration of Subsystems, Building of Prototype Vehicles, Outfitting Intersections”) (the combination of which is referred to as “combination Beaurepaire” hereinafter). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 45, Beaurepaire teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
maintaining, by a user device, navigation (Beaurepaire: ¶ 048; "candidate parking locations can then be provided to routing engine 403 (e.g., any navigation routing engine known in the art or equivalent) to determine a route") to a first intermediate waypoint, the first intermediate waypoint corresponding to a multi-waypoint route on a map, the multi-waypoint route having one or more intermediate waypoints and a destination; (Beaurepaire: ¶ 056; "generating a route from A to C with a stopover a B") determining, by the user device, whether the user device is within a zone corresponding to the first intermediate waypoint of the multi-waypoint route; (Beaurepaire: ¶ 004; "apparatus is also caused to process map data representing a road network within a proximity threshold of the current destination to determine the recommended vehicle parking and/or stopping location") in response to determining that the user device is within the zone corresponding to the first intermediate waypoint, (Beaurepaire: ¶ 060; "upon arrival at destination A, approaching destination A within a threshold distance, or at the start of navigation to destination A, the routing platform 111 computes the best or optimized route (e.g., best with respect to travel time, distance, etc.) to destination B considering the need to park near destination A. Based on this upfront route computation to destination B from the parking location at destination A, the routing platform 111 recommends the most suitable parking location/area or even the best side of street next to destination A") periodically identifying a set of locations of the user device, each location of the set of locations identified at least periodically by the user device; (Beaurepaire: ¶ 034; "system 100 of FIG. 1 introduces a capability to leverage data on known or predicted next destinations (e.g., determined by manual input or a user's mobility graph that represents, for instance, the user's historical mobility data and patterns comprising GPS points or trajectories of a device associated with a person tracked over a time period)") . . .
To the extent Beaurepaire is silent about or does not explicitly teach: each location of the set of locations being associated with a time the location was identified; determining, by the user device and for each location of the set of locations, a respective weight of the location the respective weightthe time the location was identified; determining, by the user device, a departure score based at least in part on the set of weights and the set of locations; updating the multi-waypoint route on the map to automatically advance navigation to a second intermediate waypoint based at least in part on the departure score; however, Maile, et al. does teach:
teaches a system of identifying if a vehicle is approaching a traffic signal (Maile: Fig. 49; [showing a first zone threshold check])as a waypoint on a travel journey by determining a rate of change (Maile: Pg. 139; Rate of change in distance) in GPS positions (Maile: Pg. 136; GPS solution update) wherein the rate of change is (1) smoothed over time with a weighted exponential moving average (Maile: Pg. 136; ( 1 / 1 + (2πFT) ((rate of change in distancen-1) +2πF(distance_n – distance_n-1))) and (2) used as a departure score to assess if the intersection is being departed (based on negative values) (Maile: Fig. 49; [showing the ROC value is used to select the intersection approaching or departing]) at which point the algorithm restarts and identifies the next approaching intersection (Maile: Pg. 142; [circle E shows the process repeating to identify the next intersection])
Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art in the art would have been taught: each location of the set of locations being associated with a time the location was identified; determining, by the user device and for each location of the set of locations, a respective weight of the location the respective weightthe time the location was identified; determining, by the user device, a departure score based at least in part on the set of weights and the set of locations; updating the multi-waypoint route on the map to automatically advance navigation to a second intermediate waypoint based at least in part on the departure score
Because Maile teaches weighting a GPS position rate of change over time while the claimed invention teaches weighting a GPS position over time – but a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the difference between the two teachings is only that Maile uses a “change in position” in GPS as opposed to using a direct GPS position. However, the difference between the change and position and the rate of change is merely the simple rate = distance / time equation. Further, Maile’s restarting the process at location circle E, Figure 52 indicates advancing navigation to a second intermediate waypoint.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Maile with the teachings of Beaurepaire because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “prevent[ing] normal GPS inaccuracies from impacting the performance” (Maile: ¶ 140).
Regarding claim 48, as detailed above, combination Beaurepaire teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 45. Beaurepaire further teaches:
wherein the zone is a pre-arrival zone. (Beaurepaire: ¶ 046; "the proximity threshold applied by the recommendation module 405 can encompass areas before and/or after reaching the destination")
Regarding claim 49, as detailed above, combination Beaurepaire teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 48. Beaurepaire further teaches:
wherein the pre-arrival zone is based at least in part on an area having one or more area properties. (Beaurepaire: ¶ 060; "routing platform 111 can present a user interface with the parking location recommendation on arrival at the destination A, approaching destination A within a proximity threshold, at the start of navigation, etc.")
Regarding claim 50, as detailed above, combination Beaurepaire teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 49. Beaurepaire further teaches:
wherein the pre-arrival zone includes an area with an area property of being a parking area associated with the first intermediate waypoint. (Beaurepaire: ¶ 060; "routing platform 111 computes an optimized route to destination B from a recommended parking/stopping location at intermediate destination A. In one embodiment, upon arrival at destination A, approaching destination A within a threshold distance, or at the start of navigation to destination A, the routing platform 111 computes the best or optimized route (e.g., best with respect to travel time, distance, etc.) to destination B considering the need to park near destination A")
Regarding claim 51, as detailed above, combination Beaurepaire teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 48. Beaurepaire further teaches:
wherein the pre-arrival zone includes an area within a distance of the first intermediate waypoint. (Beaurepaire: ¶ 046-047; "the proximity threshold applied by the recommendation module 405 can encompass areas before and/or after reaching the destination. Data on distance to be walked can also be a parameter when determining an optimal parking or stopping location. For example, the recommendation module 405 can perform optimizations based on whether the user's profile and/or preferences data indicates that the user is ready to walk a configured distance (e.g., 200-300 meters),")
Regarding claim 52, as detailed above, combination Beaurepaire teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 48. Beaurepaire further teaches:
wherein the pre-arrival zone includes an area within a distance of one or more entries associated with the first intermediate waypoint. (Beaurepaire: ¶ 066; "routing platform 111 determines a plurality of shared vehicles within a proximity threshold of the current location of the user searching for a shared vehicle. For example, the routing platform 111 can query a mobility provider for the location of shared vehicles and present the locations on a mapping user interface.")
Regarding claim 53, as detailed above, combination Beaurepaire teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 48. Beaurepaire further teaches:
wherein the pre-arrival zone includes any combination of the following: an area within a distance of the first intermediate waypoint, (Beaurepaire: ¶ 060; "upon arrival at destination A, approaching destination A within a threshold distance, or at the start of navigation to destination A, the routing platform 111 computes the best or optimized route (e.g., best with respect to travel time, distance, etc.) to destination B considering the need to park near destination A. Based on this upfront route computation to destination B from the parking location at destination A, the routing platform 111 recommends the most suitable parking location/area or even the best side of street next to destination A") an area within a distance of an entry associated with the first intermediate waypoint, (Beaurepaire: ¶ 066; "routing platform 111 determines a plurality of shared vehicles within a proximity threshold of the current location of the user searching for a shared vehicle. For example, the routing platform 111 can query a mobility provider for the location of shared vehicles and present the locations on a mapping user interface.") an area within a distance of one or more entries associated with the first intermediate waypoint, and a parking area associated with the first intermediate waypoint. (Beaurepaire: ¶ 060; "routing platform 111 computes an optimized route to destination B from a recommended parking/stopping location at intermediate destination A. In one embodiment, upon arrival at destination A, approaching destination A within a threshold distance, or at the start of navigation to destination A, the routing platform 111 computes the best or optimized route (e.g., best with respect to travel time, distance, etc.) to destination B considering the need to park near destination A")
Regarding claim 58, Beaurepaire teaches a device comprising:
a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions; and a processor configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to at least: (Beaurepaire: ¶ 004; "comprises at least one processor, and at least one memory including computer program code") maintain, by the device, navigation to (Beaurepaire: ¶ 048; "candidate parking locations can then be provided to routing engine 403 (e.g., any navigation routing engine known in the art or equivalent) to determine a route") a first intermediate waypoint, the first intermediate waypoint corresponding to a multi-waypoint route on a map, the multi- waypoint route having one or more intermediate waypoints and a destination; (Beaurepaire: ¶ 056; "generating a route from A to C with a stopover a B") determine, by the device, whether the device is within a zone corresponding to the first intermediate waypoint of the multi-waypoint route; (Beaurepaire: ¶ 004; "comprises at least one processor, and at least one memory including computer program code") in response to determining that the device is within the zone corresponding to the first intermediate waypoint (Beaurepaire: ¶ 060; "upon arrival at destination A, approaching destination A within a threshold distance, or at the start of navigation to destination A, the routing platform 111 computes the best or optimized route (e.g., best with respect to travel time, distance, etc.) to destination B considering the need to park near destination A. Based on this upfront route computation to destination B from the parking location at destination A, the routing platform 111 recommends the most suitable parking location/area or even the best side of street next to destination A") identify a set of locations of the device, each location of the set of locations identified at least periodically by the device; (Beaurepaire: ¶ 034; "system 100 of FIG. 1 introduces a capability to leverage data on known or predicted next destinations (e.g., determined by manual input or a user's mobility graph that represents, for instance, the user's historical mobility data and patterns comprising GPS points or trajectories of a device associated with a person tracked over a time period)") . . . update the multi-waypoint route (Beaurepaire: ¶ 040; "destination module 401 determines the next destination (or any number of subsequent locations) following a current destination specified by a user. In other words, the next destination is any location that the user wants or is predicted to travel to after reaching a current destination or location”) (Beaurepaire: ¶ 042; "recommendation module 405 interacts with the routing engine 403 to optimize a vehicle parking and/or stopping location at the current destination or location based on the determined next destination.”)
To the extent Beaurepaire is silent about or does not explicitly teach: each location of the set of locations being associated with a time the location was identifiedand for each location of the set of locations, a respective weight of the locations the respective weight based at least in part on the time the location was identified; determine, by the device, a departure score based at least in part on the set of weights and the set of locations; update the multi-waypoint route on the map to automatically advance navigation to a second intermediate waypoint based at least in part on the departure score; however, Maile, et al. does teach:
teaches a system of identifying if a vehicle is approaching a traffic signal (Maile: Fig. 49; [showing a first zone threshold check])as a waypoint on a travel journey by determining a rate of change (Maile: Pg. 139; Rate of change in distance) in GPS positions (Maile: Pg. 136; GPS solution update) wherein the rate of change is (1) smoothed over time with a weighted exponential moving average (Maile: Pg. 136; ( 1 / 1 + (2πFT) ((rate of change in distancen-1) +2πF(distance_n – distance_n-1))) and (2) used as a departure score to assess if the intersection is being departed (based on negative values) (Maile: Fig. 49; [showing the ROC value is used to select the intersection approaching or departing]) at which point the algorithm restarts and identifies the next approaching intersection (Maile: Pg. 142; [circle E shows the process repeating to identify the next intersection])
Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art in the art would have been taught: each location of the set of locations being associated with a time the location was identifiedand for each location of the set of locations, a respective weight of the locations the respective weight based at least in part on the time the location was identified; determine, by the device, a departure score based at least in part on the set of weights and the set of locations; update the multi-waypoint route on the map to automatically advance navigation to a second intermediate waypoint based at least in part on the departure score
Because Maile teaches weighting a GPS position rate of change over time while the claimed invention teaches weighting a GPS position over time – but a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the difference between the two teachings is only that Maile uses a “change in position” in GPS as opposed to using a direct GPS position. However, the difference between the change and position and the rate of change is merely the simple rate = distance / time equation. Further, Maile’s restarting the process at location circle E, Figure 52 indicates advancing navigation to a second intermediate waypoint.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Maile with the teachings of Beaurepaire because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “prevent[ing] normal GPS inaccuracies from impacting the performance” (Maile: ¶ 140).
Regarding claim 61, Beaurepaire teaches a device comprising:
non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computer system, cause the computer system to perform operations, comprising: (Beaurepaire: ¶ 004; "comprises at least one processor, and at least one memory including computer program code") maintaining, by a user device, navigation (Beaurepaire: ¶ 048; "candidate parking locations can then be provided to routing engine 403 (e.g., any navigation routing engine known in the art or equivalent) to determine a route") to a first intermediate waypoint, the first intermediate waypoint corresponding to a multi-waypoint route on a map, the multi-waypoint route having one or more intermediate waypoints and a destination; (Beaurepaire: ¶ 056; "generating a route from A to C with a stopover a B") determining, by the user device, whether the user device is within a zone corresponding to the first intermediate waypoint of the multi-waypoint route; (Beaurepaire: ¶ 004; "apparatus is also caused to process map data representing a road network within a proximity threshold of the current destination to determine the recommended vehicle parking and/or stopping location") in response to determining that the user device is within the zone corresponding to the first intermediate waypoint, (Beaurepaire: ¶ 060; "upon arrival at destination A, approaching destination A within a threshold distance, or at the start of navigation to destination A, the routing platform 111 computes the best or optimized route (e.g., best with respect to travel time, distance, etc.) to destination B considering the need to park near destination A. Based on this upfront route computation to destination B from the parking location at destination A, the routing platform 111 recommends the most suitable parking location/area or even the best side of street next to destination A") identifying a set of locations of the user device, each location of the set of locations identified at least periodically by the user device; (Beaurepaire: ¶ 034; "system 100 of FIG. 1 introduces a capability to leverage data on known or predicted next destinations (e.g., determined by manual input or a user's mobility graph that represents, for instance, the user's historical mobility data and patterns comprising GPS points or trajectories of a device associated with a person tracked over a time period)") . . . updating the multi-waypoint route (Beaurepaire: ¶ 040; "destination module 401 determines the next destination (or any number of subsequent locations) following a current destination specified by a user. In other words, the next destination is any location that the user wants or is predicted to travel to after reaching a current destination or location”) (Beaurepaire: ¶ 042; "recommendation module 405 interacts with the routing engine 403 to optimize a vehicle parking and/or stopping location at the current destination or location based on the determined next destination.”)
To the extent Beaurepaire is silent about or does not explicitly teach: each location of the set of locations being associated with a time the location was identified; determining, by the user device and for each location of the set of locations, a respective weight of the locationthe respective weight based at least in part on the time the location was identifie to automatically advance navigation to a second intermediate waypoint based at least in part on the departure score; however, Maile, et al. does teach:
teaches a system of identifying if a vehicle is approaching a traffic signal (Maile: Fig. 49; [showing a first zone threshold check])as a waypoint on a travel journey by determining a rate of change (Maile: Pg. 139; Rate of change in distance) in GPS positions (Maile: Pg. 136; GPS solution update) wherein the rate of change is (1) smoothed over time with a weighted exponential moving average (Maile: Pg. 136; ( 1 / 1 + (2πFT) ((rate of change in distancen-1) +2πF(distance_n – distance_n-1))) and (2) used as a departure score to assess if the intersection is being departed (based on negative values) (Maile: Fig. 49; [showing the ROC value is used to select the intersection approaching or departing]) at which point the algorithm restarts and identifies the next approaching intersection (Maile: Pg. 142; [circle E shows the process repeating to identify the next intersection])
Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art in the art would have been taught: each location of the set of locations being associated with a time the location was identified; determining, by the user device and for each location of the set of locations, a respective weight of the locationthe respective weight based at least in part on the time the location was identifie to automatically advance navigation to a second intermediate waypoint based at least in part on the departure score;
Because Maile teaches weighting a GPS position rate of change over time while the claimed invention teaches weighting a GPS position over time – but a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the difference between the two teachings is only that Maile uses a “change in position” in GPS as opposed to using a direct GPS position. However, the difference between the change and position and the rate of change is merely the simple rate = distance / time equation. Further, Maile’s restarting the process at location circle E, Figure 52 indicates advancing navigation to a second intermediate waypoint
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Maile with the teachings of Beaurepaire because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “prevent[ing] normal GPS inaccuracies from impacting the performance” (Maile: ¶ 140).
Claims 46-47, 54-55, 57, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Beaurepaire as applied to claims 45 and 58 respectively above and in further view of Yoshioka (JP 2006053132 A). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 46, as detailed above, combination Beaurepaire teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 45. Yoshioka further teaches:
wherein updating the multi-waypoint route includes maintaining navigation to the first intermediate waypoint based at least in part on the departure score in relation to a departure threshold. (Yoshioka: ¶ 280; "departure place category from the reference stay time accumulation unit 7104 (step S7703), and determines whether or not the goal has been achieved depending on whether the stay time at the departure place is shorter than the reference stay time. (Step S7704). If it is short, it is determined that the objective has not been achieved (yes in step S7704), and the process proceeds to step S7706. If it is long, it is determined that the objective has been achieved (yes in step S7705), and the process proceeds to step S7705.")
Regarding claim 47, as detailed above, combination Beaurepaire teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 45. Yoshioka further teaches:
wherein updating the multi-waypoint route includes advancing navigation from the first intermediate waypoint to a second intermediate waypoint or to the destination based at least in part on the departure score in relation to a departure threshold. (Yoshioka: ¶ 282; "alternative destination search unit 7108 searches the map information storage unit 7107 for an alternative destination according to the determined destination category (step S7707). In step S7708, display control of the destination information predicted by the display control unit 7109 is performed. Then, the information presentation unit 7110 presents information")
Regarding claim 54, as detailed above, combination Beaurepaire teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 45. Yoshioka further teaches:
wherein determining the departure score further based at least in part on a number of locations of the set of locations inside the zone (Yoshioka: ¶ 139; "the driver's current location and time, and information on the route to the current location are used, and the destination information prediction unit 2102 uses the accumulated information in the movement history accumulation unit") (Yoshioka: ¶ 006; "the movement destination display device according to the present invention includes movement history accumulation means for accumulating movement history, which is information relating to a movement route from a departure place")
Regarding claim 55, as detailed above, combination Beaurepaire teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 45. Yoshioka further teaches:
wherein the departure score corresponds, at least in part, to a ratio of a number of locations of the set of locations inside the zone compared to a total number of locations in the set of locations. (Yoshioka: ¶ 020; "t has passed the Δ △ intersection 100 times in the past, and then has reached the restaurant 40 times, has reached the convenience store 30 times, and has reached the supermarket 20 times. It is shown that. Further, the movement destination arrival probability is calculated as “movement destination arrival frequency ÷ total number of passages × 100 (%)”. In the case of the movement destination candidate list 201, the restaurant is 40% (40 ÷ 100 × 100), and similarly. It is calculated that the convenience store is 30% and the supermarket is 20%. This indicates that when a user is currently moving at a point that triggers prediction,")
Regarding claim 57, as detailed above, combination Beaurepaire teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 45. Yoshioka further teaches:
wherein the departure score corresponds, at least in part, to distances of the locations of the set of locations from the first intermediate waypoint. (Yoshioka: ¶ 139; "the driver's current location and time, and information on the route to the current location are used, and the destination information prediction unit 2102 uses the accumulated information in the movement history accumulation unit") (Yoshioka: ¶ 293; "departure place purchase behavior detection unit 8103 detects the departure place and the time at the departure place from the movement history accumulation unit") (Yoshioka: ¶ 006; "the movement destination display device according to the present invention includes movement history accumulation means for accumulating movement history, which is information relating to a movement route from a departure place")
Regarding claim 59, as detailed above, combination Beaurepaire teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 58. Yoshioka further teaches:
wherein determining the departure score further based at least in part on an auto-advance tendency factor. (Yoshioka: ¶ 024; "operation candidate index may be stored as a rule in advance, or may be set by the user, or an item with a high frequency of operation may be automatically selected reflecting the user's operation history.")
Claims 56 and 62-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Beaurepaire as applied to claims 48 and 61 respectively above, and further in view of Chen (US 20090210146 A1).
Regarding claim 56, as detailed above, combination Beaurepaire teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 45. Neither combination Beaurepaire nor Chen explicitly teach:
wherein the departure score corresponds, at least in part, to distances of the locations of the set of locations from the zone; however, Yoshioka does teach:
A weighted arrival system where a distance from multiple destinations in the zone are considered when determining arrival (Yoshioka: ¶ 280-283; ¶ 249)
and Chen teaches:
A system in which distance from a destination is considered for determine departure(Chen: ¶ 063; "the processing module 12 of the system 1 detects departure from the visited place-of-interest (I) only when a current location of the processing module 12 of the system 1 is at least a predetermined distance, e.g., 10 kilometers, from the visited place-of-interest").
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught or suggested:
wherein the departure score corresponds, at least in part, to distances of the locations of the set of locations from the zone.
because simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416; MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). In the instant case, Yoshioka contains a method which differs from the claimed limitation by the substitution of applying distance to determining departure, but Chen shows that evaluating departure from a destination with distance was known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another such that Kudos multiple location weighting was applied to Chen’s distance test and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Consequently, the combination is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 62, as detailed above, combination Beaurepaire teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 61. Combination Beaurepaire does not explicitly teach:
wherein the departure score is calculated at least periodically; however, Chen does teach: wherein the departure score is calculated at least periodically. (Chen: ¶ 064; "when the processing module 12 of the system 1 detects the departure from the visited place-of-interest (I), the flows proceeds to step 38. Otherwise, the flow goes back to step 36.").
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Beaurepaire with the teachings of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Beaurepaire's and Chen's base methods are similar vehicle routing methods; however, the combined device would predictably be improved by more completely considering the amount of travel time required for multiple destinations (Chen: ¶ 005).
Regarding claim 63 as detailed above, combination Beaurepaire teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 61. Neither combination Beaurepaire nor Chen explicitly teach:
wherein a period for identifying each location of the set of locations is one second; however, Chen does teach:
A system in which identifying each location of the set of locations is consistently repeated. (Chen: ¶ 064; "when the processing module 12 of the system 1 detects the departure from the visited place-of-interest (I), the flows proceeds to step 38. Otherwise, the flow goes back to step 36.").
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught or suggested: wherein a period for identifying each location of the set of locations is one second.
because routine optimization does not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the conditions are critical. MPEP § 2144.05 (II). Here, updating a navigational result once per second or ten times per second is not critical but is rather is a matter of a reduction to practice based on the amount of processor power and memory available to the system.
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Beaurepaire as applied to claim 58 above, and further in view of Ishibashi (JP 5076617 B2).
Regarding claim 60, as detailed above, combination Beaurepaire teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 58. Combination Beaurepaire does not explicitly teach:
wherein the departure score corresponds, at least in part, to a number of re-routes to the first intermediate waypoint after the user device entered the zone; however, Ishibashi does teach:
wherein the departure score corresponds, at least in part, to a number of re-routes to the first intermediate waypoint after the user device entered the zone. (Ishibashi: ¶ 039; "If the reroute occurs more than a predetermined number of times, route guidance is provided based on the recommended route to the destination that should have passed, even though it is actually going through the destination and moving to the next destination").
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Beaurepaire with the teachings of Ishibashi with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Beaurepaire's and Ishibashi's base methods are similar multi-waypoint routing improvement methods; however, the combined device would be improved because Ishibashi’s teaching of an automatic recognition of leaving a location would create a predictable expectation of advantage because doing so would improve performance regardless if “the current position of the vehicle and the coordinates of the destination match, accurat[ly].” Ishibashi: ¶ 006.
Claim 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Beaurepaire as applied to claim 61 above, and further in view of Ogino (JP 2011234022 A)
Regarding claim 64, as detailed above, combination Beaurepaire teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 61. Combination Beaurepaire does not explicitly teach:
wherein the set of locations is limited to a maximum number of locations, an oldest location being replaced by a newest location.; however, Ogino does teach:
wherein the set of locations is limited to a maximum number of locations, an oldest location being replaced by a newest location. (Ogino: Pg. 003; "The location history table 121 stores the latest 25 location information, and is configured to delete the oldest location information when new location information acquired by the location information acquisition unit 11 is stored.").
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Beaurepaire with the teachings of Ogino with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Beaurepaire's and Ogino's base methods are similar navigation; however, the combined device would better manage memory reducing the cost of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed May 6, 2026 with respect to claim(s) 45-64 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that
Neither Beaurepairenor Yoshioka teach or suggest "for each location of the set of locations, a respective weight of the location" Amended claim 45 now recites, in relevant part, “determining, by the user device and for each location of the set of locations, a respective weight of the location, the respective weight based at least in part on the time the location was identified." Support for this amendment may be found in at least par. [0060] of the Specification as filed. Specifically, “Each weight of the set of weights can correspond to a location of the set of locations. Each weight can be based at least in part on a time since the respective locations were identified." Specification, par. [0060]. The Office Action uses Yoshioka to teach this element. Yoshioka describes a system for determining whether a user has likely achieved their purpose for visiting a given location. Yoshioka, par. [0249]. This determination is made based on the time that a user has spent at the destination, based on the type of destination. "If the time is much shorter than the average, such as 5 minutes, the terminal presents an alternative restaurant because there is a high possibility that the purpose of "mealing" was not achieved due to "full seating" or the like." Id., par. [0266]. Because the time was too short to achieve the goal of eating, Yoshioka then suggests other restaurants (or other destinations of the same type) to the user for user selection. Thus, the time constraint of Yoshioka is to determine whether or not a goal was met, not used to "determin[e], a respective weight of the location." Thus, Yoshioka cannot teach at least this element. None of Beaurepaire, Chen, or Ogino remedy this deficiency. Because of this, amended claim 45, and all claims depending therefrom are believed to be in condition for allowance. Applicant respectfully requests these rejections be removed. (Applicant’s Arguments filed May 6, 2026, pg. PP).
Newly applied prior art “Final Task Report, Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance System Limited to Stop Sign and Traffic Signal Violations (CICAS-V): Task 10 Final Report: Integration of Subsystems, Building of Prototype Vehicles, Outfitting Intersections” by Maile et al. teaches a system in which a vehicle identifies approaching and departing a waypoint, a traffic light equipped intersection, by applying a weighted exponential moving average to the rates of change of a series of 10Hz GPS positions such that previous locations are reduced in importance and outstanding values are smoothed.
PNG
media_image1.png
59
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Once the rate of change shifts from positive to negative, Maile determines that the intersection has been departed and moves to identifying the next waypont in along the route. Maile: Fig. 48-49; Pgs. 136-142). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the only difference between the instant claimed invention and Maile’s teaching is that Maile uses a “change in position” in GPS as opposed to using a direct GPS position; however, the difference between the change and position and the rate of change is merely the simple rate = distance / time equation. Consequently, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Wong (US 9741191 B1) which discloses a method of arriving at a destination based on a threshold distance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
