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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on August 21, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hsu-Hoffman et al., U.S. Patent 12,361,494 B2 (2025).
As to claim 1, Hsu-Hoffman et al. discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
identifying an obstacle along an initial driving route to a destination specified by a user (Column 11, Lines 15-29);
presenting, on a user interface for the user, details of the obstacle (Column 24, Lines 33-44);
prompting the user, on the user interface, to input, via the user interface, a rating for the obstacle that indicates the user’s tolerance to traversing the obstacle while driving (Column 17, Lines 35-61, Column 18, Lines 24-48);
receiving from the user the rating for the obstacle, the rating indicating the user’s tolerance to traversing the obstacle while driving, wherein the rating indicates that the obstacle is to be avoided (Column 17, Line 15 - Column 18, Line 23); and
recalculating the initial driving route to the destination to provide an alternative driving route to the destination, wherein the alternative route avoids the obstacle (Column 17, Line 15 – Column 18, Line 23).
As to claim 2, Hsu-Hoffman et al. discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the prompting prompts the user to select between an option of avoiding traversal of the obstacle and an option of tolerating traversal of the obstacle (Column 18, Lines 24-48, Column 27, Lines 44-64).
As to claim 3, Hsu-Hoffman et al. discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the prompting prompts the user to select between options on a tolerance rating scale (Column 11, Lines 15-29).
As to claim 5, Hsu-Hoffman et al. discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the identifying identifies multiple obstacles along the initial driving route, wherein the presenting presents details of the multiple obstacles, wherein the prompting prompts the user to input a respective rating for each of the multiple obstacles, and wherein the receiving receives a respective rating for each of the multiple obstacles (Column 17, Lines 35-61, Column 18, Lines 24-48).
As to claim 6, Hsu-Hoffman et al. discloses the method of claim 5, and further discloses wherein the presenting details of the multiple obstacles indicates the multiple obstacles to the user in a ranked order based on a composite tolerance rating, the ranked order ordering the multiple obstacles from least tolerated to least avoided (Column 18, Lines 24-48).
As to claim 7, Hsu-Hoffman et al. discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the obstacle comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a bridge, a tunnel, a cliff-side road, and a mountain (Column 19, Line 42 – Column 20, Line 10).
As to claim 8, Hsu-Hoffman et al. discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising indicating to the user one or more deviations between the initial driving route and the alternative driving route, the one or more deviations comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a difference in estimated time of arrival to the destination as between the initial driving route and the alternative driving route, and (ii) a difference in toll fees as between the initial driving route and the alternative driving route (Column 18, Lines 24-48).
As to claim 14, Hsu-Hoffman et al. discloses a computer system comprising:
a memory (Column 7, Line 61 – Column 8, Line 19); and
a processor in communication with the memory (Column 7, Line 61 – Column 8, Line 19), wherein the computer system is configured to perform a method comprising:
identifying an obstacle along an initial driving route to a destination specified by a user (Column 11, Lines 15-29);
presenting, on a user interface for the user, details of the obstacle (Column 24, Lines 33-44);
prompting the user, on the user interface, to input, via the user interface, a rating for the obstacle that indicates the user’s tolerance to traversing the obstacle while driving (Column 17, Lines 35-61, Column 18, Lines 24-48);
receiving from the user the rating for the obstacle, the rating indicating the user’s tolerance to traversing the obstacle while driving, wherein the rating indicates that the obstacle is to be avoided (Column 17, Line 15 - Column 18, Line 23); and
recalculating the initial driving route to the destination to provide an alternative driving route to the destination, wherein the alternative route avoids the obstacle (Column 17, Line 15 – Column 18, Line 23).
As to claim 18, Hsu-Hoffman et al. discloses a computer program product comprising:
a computer readable storage medium readable by a processing circuit and storing instructions for execution by the processing circuit (Column 7, Line 61 – Column 8, Line 19) to:
identify an obstacle along an initial driving route to a destination specified by a user (Column 11, Lines 15-29);
present, on a user interface for the user, details of the obstacle (Column 24, Lines 33-44);
prompt the user, on the user interface, to input, via the user interface, a rating for the obstacle that indicates the user’s tolerance to traversing the obstacle while driving (Column 17, Lines 35-61, Column 18, Lines 24-48);
receive from the user the rating for the obstacle, the rating indicating the user’s tolerance to traversing the obstacle while driving, wherein the rating indicates that the obstacle is to be avoided (Column 17, Line 15 – Column 18, Line 23); and
recalculate the initial driving route to the destination to provide an alternative driving route to the destination, wherein the alternative route avoids the obstacle (Column 17, Line 15 – Column 18, Line 23).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu-Hoffman et al., U.S. Patent 12,361,494 B2 (2025) in view of Mayster, U.S. Patent 11,971,269 B2 (2024).
As to claim 4, Hsu-Hoffman et al. discloses the method of claim 1. Hsu-Hoffman et al. does not disclose an image of the obstacle, as claimed.
Mayster discloses wherein the presenting the details of the obstacle comprises presenting an image of the obstacle to the user on the user interface (Column 24, Lines 51-63, Column 27, Lines 13-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of claim 1, as disclosed by Hsu-Hoffman et al., with the use of images of the obstacle, as disclosed by Mayster, with a reasonable expectation of success, presenting the obstacle imagery in a standard manner, allowing the user to determine the user’s tolerance to traversing the obstacle based on pictures that show the actual obstacle or allow greater understanding of what the obstacle would mean to the traversing of the route.
As to claim 15, Hsu-Hoffman et al. discloses the computer system of claim 14. Hsu-Hoffman et al. does not disclose an image of the obstacle, as claimed.
Mayster discloses wherein the presenting the details of the obstacle comprises presenting an image of the obstacle to the user on the user interface (Column 24, Lines 51-63, Column 27, Lines 13-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the computer system of claim 14, as disclosed by Hsu-Hoffman et al., with the use of images of the obstacle, as disclosed by Mayster, with a reasonable expectation of success, presenting the obstacle imagery in a standard manner, allowing the user to determine the user’s tolerance to traversing the obstacle based on pictures that show the actual obstacle or allow greater understanding of what the obstacle would mean to the traversing of the route.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13, 16-17 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The publication of the present application is cited. Berman et al. is cited as disclosing a similar system based on safety rankings. The issued patents based on the IDS references to published applications are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
MICHAEL BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights