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 1-5 have been amended. Claims 1-5 are currently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed July 29th, 2025 with respect to the Objection to the Specification have been fully considered and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed July 29th, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has not provided any reasoning as to why the 112(f) interpretation is improper therefore the interpretation is maintained.
Applicant's amendments filed July 29th, 2025 with respect to the Objection have been fully considered and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments filed July 29th, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 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. In view of Applicant’s amendments, a new rejection in view of Zhang et al., CN112543723A is made.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Claim 1
“a candidate route searching unit”
“a determination unit”
“a recommended route searching unit”
“an output unit”
Claim 4
“a traveling information acquiring unit”
The last paragraph of the Specifications discloses that each of the candidate route searching unit 50, the determination unit 60, the recommended route searching unit 70, the output unit 80, and the traveling information acquiring unit 91 illustrated in Figures 1 and 11 are implementable by circuitry including at least one semiconductor integrated circuit such as at least one processor (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU)). Therefore, these limitations are interpreted as parts of a processor, per the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al., CN112543723A, hereinafter referred to as Zhang (see English Translation).
As per Claims 1 and 5, Zhang discloses a method and system comprising:
a first map storage configured to store navigation map information including a navigation map (see at least Page 2, “combining high precision map and traditional map”);
a second map storage configured to store high-precision map information including a high-precision map (see at least Page 2, “combining high precision map and traditional map”);
a position information detector configured to acquire position information of the vehicle (see at least Page 5 and 7, “the device can according to the current position of the vehicle” and “GPS”);
an information receiver configured to accept information comprising destination information from a user of the vehicle (see at least Page 18, “wherein the target position can be the user input the into the vehicle-mounted device”);
a candidate route searching unit configured to perform searching of the navigation map information for one or more candidate routes, on a basis of the destination information and the position information of the vehicle (see at least Page 14, “Because the road section richness and accuracy of the traditional map, and the traditional map can obtain the updated real-time traffic information, therefore, the first traditional path calculated in the traditional map is the path planning the most reasonable current path, namely the first traditional path meets the following characteristics: less congestion; the driving time is short; the road condition is smooth, and the total length is short.”);
a determination unit configured to make a determination as to, regarding the one or more candidate routes retrieved by the searching, effectiveness of driving assistance control or automatic driving control on a basis of the high-precision map information, wherein the determination unit is configured to determine that a route satisfies the effectiveness of the driving assistance control or the automatic driving control when the route is included in both the navigation map and the high-precision map (see at least Pages 2-3, “starting the real-time navigation broadcast based on the first traditional path’ and starting the automatic driving mode using the target high precision path as the path navigation”; see at least Page 9, “first/second matching types”, Examiner notes that the Zhang’s teaching of selecting the path that encompasses the closest match of both maps is determining the most effective path).
a recommended route searching unit configured to perform searching through the one or more candidate routes for a recommended route, on a basis of a result of the determination made by the determination unit (see at least Page 28, “S809b: the human-computer interaction module receives the first path selection instruction input by the user from the human-computer interaction input and output component, and sends the first path selection instruction to the driving control module. wherein the first path selection instruction is used for determining the target high precision path selected”);
an output unit configured to output information on the recommended route to a driving assistance control apparatus or an automatic driving control apparatus (see at least page 22, “automatically driven”);
a display configured to display the recommended route (see least page 3, “display screen”); and
a driving control apparatus configured to execute the driving assistance control or the automatic driving to control the vehicle to travel along the recommended route (see at least page 22, “automatically driven”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Kim, WO2020235814A1, hereinafter referred to as Kim.
As per Claims 2-4, Zhang discloses the determination unit is configured to make a re-determination as to, regarding the one or more candidate routes retrieved by the re-searching, the effectiveness of the driving assistance control or the automatic driving control (see at least Page 19-20, “because the first traditional path is path planning optimal traffic route, but the high precision map component re-performing path calculation to obtain each first to-be-selected high precision path is not similar to the first traditional path or similarity is low, therefore, in fact each first to-be-selected high precision path may have a winding path ; the driving time is long; the total length is long and soon.”).
Zhang fails to disclose wherein, in a case where, before the vehicle arrives at a destination, the information receiver accepts a change request for the destination and new destination information from the user, the candidate route searching unit is configured to perform re-searching of the navigation map information for one or more candidate routes, on a basis of the new destination information, and the recommended route searching unit is configured to perform re-searching through the one or more candidate routes for a recommended route, on a basis of a result of the re- determination made by the determination unit.
However, Kim teaches the above limitation (see at least Page 50, “At this time, the processor 1580 uses information transmitted from the vehicle to determine whether an event (for example, an accident, construction, etc.) has occurred on the optimal route, or whether there is a request for a route change by the driver, or deviates from the optimum route. You can determine whether or not….As another example, the processor 1580 may determine whether a route change request has been received at the request of a user (driver), based on information received from the vehicle (S1940). For example, when there is a user's route change request (e.g., a destination change request or a destination is the same, but a driving route change request, etc.), the vehicle may transmit information informing it to the route providing device provided in the server…. In this case, the vehicle 100 may delete the existing data and autonomously drive the vehicle using the newly received optimal route and EHP information, or output a route to which the vehicle should travel in units of lanes.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhang and include allowing a user to enter a new destination and providing a new route as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides the driver flexibility and convenience in being able to avoid accident or construction (see Kim Page 50).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fadey S Jabr whose telephone number is (571)272-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am to 4:oopm.
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, Fadey S Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
FADEY S. JABR
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights