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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)(s) submitted on 2/16/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for prosecution on the merits below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 15 recites, “A computer readable storage medium comprising instructions …”.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a program (also called computer readable medium, machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.0 I. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346,1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A claim drawn to such a program that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim, such that it reads:
A computer readable storage medium comprising non-transitory instructions …”.
Claims 16-20 depend from 15 and therefore inherit the same defect. These claims should be amended the same way.
See also guidance provided in the Letter by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, David Kappos entitled Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 OG 212, dated February 23, 2010.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) (1, 8, 15), (2, 9, 16), (4, 11, 18), and (5, 12, 19) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiroyuki JP2015095721 (See uploaded machine translated document, FOR).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15 [claim 8 is considered representative for purposes of itemization. The method claims are encompassed by the device claims], Hiroyuki discloses a system, comprising:
a processor [see page 3: Further, when the return home determination unit determines that the user is heading home, the above-described processing is performed.]; and
a memory [see page 4: The navigation side control unit 11 is configured as a computer, and includes a well-known CPU, a non-volatile memory such as a ROM and an EEPROM, a volatile memory such as a RAM, an I / O, and a bus line connecting these configurations (all are (Not shown). In addition to programs for executing various processes, the nonvolatile memory stores a vehicle identifier set for the host vehicle and a home appliance identifier set for each home appliance 3.], wherein the processor and the memory are communicably coupled, wherein the processor:
analyzes a drive pattern of a vehicle [see page 1 claim 1: A position acquisition unit (11B) for acquiring position information of a vehicle driven by the user. Page 3 para. 9: position acquisition unit(11B) that acquires the position information of the vehicle];
predicts a destination of the vehicle based on the analyzes [Page 3 para. 9: When it is determined from the position information acquired by the position acquisition unit that the arrival time calculation unit (11G) that calculates the estimated arrival time when the user arrives at the home]; and
performs an action at the predicted destination [see page 1 claim 1: A home appliance remote control system (100) for remotely operating at least one electric device (3) installed in a user's home] based on an amount of time until an arrival of the vehicle at the predicted destination [see abstract: activation time setting unit 21A sets the activation time for each control target based on the predicted arrival time. Page 3 para. 9: Therefore, the possibility that the estimated arrival time calculated by the arrival time calculation unit may be misaligned with the actual estimated arrival time by misrecognizing that the user is moving with a moving means different from the actual moving means is reduced. be able to. Since the accuracy of the activation time set by the activation time setting unit can be improved, the operation of the electronic device that is the control target can be started at a more appropriate activation time. Page 4 para. 2: Hereinafter, an example of an embodiment of the present invention (referred to as Embodiment 1) will be described with reference to the drawings. FIG. 1is a diagram illustrating a schematic configuration of a home appliance remote control system 100 according to the first embodiment. As shown in FIG. 1, the home appliance remote control system 100 includes a navigation device 1, a home device 2, and a home electric appliance (hereinafter, home appliance) 3.].
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Hiroyuki discloses comprising: determining a route optimization for the vehicle, based on the predicted destination [page. 5 para 3: The navigation-side control unit 11 performs various processes based on various information input from the navigation-side communication unit 12, the operation input unit 14, and the external I / F 15 and a program stored in the nonvolatile memory. As shown in FIG. 2, the navigation-side control unit 11performs various processes as shown in FIG. 2, such as an operation reception unit 11A, a position acquisition unit 11B, a travel route learning unit 11C, a display processing unit 11D, a route calculation unit 11E, etc.].
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Hiroyuki discloses comprising: determining a route for the vehicle, based on a current location of the vehicle and the predicted destination [page. 5 para. 10 The route calculation unit 11E calculates a recommended route satisfying preset conditions such as distance priority and time priority from the departure point to the destination such as the current vehicle position using a known search method such as the Dijkstra method. To do. In searching for are commended route, each link may be calculated by performing weighting based on the above-described travel history]; identifying one or more intermediate destinations situated in closest proximity to the determined route, based on one or more characteristics of one or more occupants of the vehicle [page 7 para 7 The home appliance 3 for which these users desire remote control and the control content thereof correspond to the reservation information described in the claims. Hereinafter, the home appliance 3 for which the user desires remote control is also referred to as a home appliance 3 to be controlled or simply a control target. When there are a plurality of control objects, the control content corresponding to each control object is included in the reservation information. This reservation information may be acquired based on a user operation, or may be acquired automatically.]; and modifying the determined route to include the identified one or more intermediate destinations [page 7 para. 2: However, even when traveling on a My Route that follows the home, if a point other than the home is set as the destination, it is determined that the user is not heading home.].
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Hiroyuki discloses wherein the analyzing comprises: identifying one or more recurrent destinations for the vehicle [page 4, 2nd to last para from bottom of page: In addition, the navigation-side storage unit 16 stores a travel history that is the number of times each link has been traveled in association with the link data. The travel history is updated by a travel route learning unit 11C described later. In addition, an address of a home or work is registered in the navigation side storage unit 16. The navigation side storage unit 16 corresponds to each of the map storage unit and the travel history storage unit described in the claims. The map storage unit and the travel history storage unit are provided in different areas in the storage area provided in the navigation-side storage unit 16.]; calculating a respective probability of the vehicle heading towards each of the one or more recurrent destinations based on a current trajectory of the vehicle; and identifying a highest-probability destination from among the one or more recurrent destinations.
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.
Claim(s) (3, 10, 17); (6, 13, 20) and (7, 14) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki JP2015095721 (See uploaded machine translated document, FOR) in view of Moore et al. US 20190025070.
Regarding claim 3, 10, 17, Hiroyuki discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: controlling one or more energy-consuming devices at the predicted destination, in response to the probability score being above a threshold [page 5 para 7: The traveling route learning unit 11C specifies the currently traveling link from the vehicle position acquired by the position acquisition unit 11B, and stores the number of travelings for each link in the navigation storage unit 16 as a traveling history [i.e. this is effectively a probability score]. In addition, the travel route learning unit 11C stores, from the travel history, a link whose number of travels is a predetermined number (for example, 10 times) [i.e. this is the threshold] or more in the navigation-side storage unit 16 as a my load and connects the my road. The generated route is stored as my route.].
Hiroyuki does not disclose: determining a probability score for the predicted destination based on one or more of a movement of the vehicle, or a time of day.
Moore discloses determining a probability score for the predicted destination based on one or more of a movement of the vehicle, or a time of day [pars. 0051].
Hiroyuki and Moore are analogous navigation systems that utilize data to help identify their destinations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate probability scoring, as taught by Moore, into Hiroyuki for the benefit of reducing the burden on the user from having to enter certain information [More, par. 0003].
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20 and 7, 14 Hiroyuki discloses claim 1, 8 and 15 respectively, but is silent regarding: determining a first probability score for the predicted destination based on one or more of historical travel data for the vehicle, an initial movement of the vehicle, or a time of day; determining a second probability score for the predicted destination based on a subsequent movement of the vehicle.
Moore discloses: determining a first probability score for the predicted destination based on one or more of historical travel data for the vehicle, an initial movement of the vehicle, or a time of day; determining a second probability score for the predicted destination based on a subsequent movement of the vehicle [pars. 0095-0098].
Hiroyuki and Moore are analogous navigation systems that utilize data to help identify their destinations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate probability scoring, as taught by Moore, into Hiroyuki for the benefit of reducing the burden on the user from having to enter certain information [More, par. 0003].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20060173841 discloses predicting a destination for a ground-based vehicle. Travel patterns are accessed and a series of locations of a ground-based vehicle are received. At least some of the received locations are related to at least one accessed travel pattern, and a destination of the ground-based vehicle is predicted based on relating the received locations with the travel patterns. An existence of an event may be predicted using the predicted destinations of a ground-based vehicle.
US 20130166096 discloses a predictive destination entry system for a vehicle navigation system to aid in obtaining a destination for the vehicle. The navigation system utilizes a memory for storing data relating to prior driving history or habits. A processor connected with the memory examines the information stored in the memory for making predictions for the current destination desired by a user of the vehicle. The information stored in the memory may be segregated into distinct user profiles and may include the vehicle location, previous driving history of the vehicle, previous searching history of a user of the vehicle, or sensory input relating to one or more characteristics of the vehicle. The navigation system may either confirm the predicted destination with the user of the vehicle before generating or displaying a travel route to the predicted destination or may automatically generate and display the travel route without verifying the destination with the user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD V MURALIDAR whose telephone number is (571)272- 8933. The examiner can normally be reached M - W 9:30 am to 6:30 PM.
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, Drew Dunn can be contacted at 571-272-2312. 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.
RICHARD V. MURALIDAR
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2859
/RICHARD V MURALIDAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights