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
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on July 24, 2025.
Claims 1-5 are currently amended.
Claims 6-8 are newly added.
Claims 1-8 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “the additional features provide a tangible benefit by enhancing user experience through real-time visual guidance and minimizing time spent searching for parking. The claimed device thus provides a clear practical application in the field of vehicle navigation and parking assistance, and offers a technical solution to the problem of arriving at a destination with no nearby parking available. This results in an improvement to navigation efficiency, improving the likelihood of successful parking and reducing unnecessary driving near the destination… Thus when viewed as a combination, the additional elements yield a claim as a whole that amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea.” See Remarks, page 9, filed on July 24, 2025.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims involve the abstract idea of determining, for each road of the plurality of roads, a total number of vacant parking spaces and identifying, among the plurality of roads, a first road as a guidance destination in a case where it is determined that a predetermined number of vacant parking spaces is included in one or more parking lots adjacent to the first road. These steps are considered mental processes because they are concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. They can be performed in the mind or by using a paper and pencil. There are no claim limitations that include the application of those results, for example, to autonomously control the vehicle along the determined pathway. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The outstanding 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained but has been modified based on Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and the updated search performed as a result of those amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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. A new ground of rejection is made in view of Mathews (Publication US 2011/0224899 A1), Adachi (Publication WO 2007/007377), Zhao (Publication US 2018/0349792 A1), Hall (US Patent 6,340,935) and Toma (Publication US 2011/0246054 A1).
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally
link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a device (i.e., an apparatus).
Claim 4 is directed to a method (i.e., a process).
Claim 5 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions executed by one or more processors (i.e., an apparatus).
Therefore, claims 1, 4, and 5 are each within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim (representing claims 4 and 5) for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A navigation device of a vehicle including a display device, the navigation device comprising:
a processor; and
a memory configured to store instructions, wherein the instructions cause the processor to:
acquire a user destination input by a user of the vehicle via the display device,
acquire, from a server, road location information about a plurality of roads located within a predetermined radius from the user destination,
acquire, for each road of the plurality of roads, parking information about a plurality of vacant parking spaces included in one or more parking lots, the one or more parking lots being adjacent to the road,
determine, for each road of the plurality of roads, a total number of the vacant parking spaces,
identify, among the plurality of roads, a first road as a guidance destination in a case where the processor determines that a predetermined number of the vacant parking spaces is included in one or more parking lots adjacent to the first road, the guidance destination being a destination to which the vehicle is guided,
display a counter indicating a total number of the vacant parking spaces of the first road via the display device, and
display a guide route from a current location of the vehicle to the guidance destination via the display device.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, each of the bolded limitations, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person performing those acts either in the human mind or by using a pen and paper.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A navigation device of a vehicle including a display device, the navigation device comprising:
a processor; and
a memory configured to store instructions, wherein the instructions cause the processor to:
acquire a user destination input by a user of the vehicle via the display device,
acquire, from a server, road location information about a plurality of roads located within a predetermined radius from the user destination,
acquire, for each road of the plurality of roads, parking information about a plurality of vacant parking spaces included in one or more parking lots, the one or more parking lots being adjacent to the road,
determine, for each road of the plurality of roads, a total number of the vacant parking spaces,
identify, among the plurality of roads, a first road as a guidance destination in a case where the processor determines that a predetermined number of the vacant parking spaces is included in one or more parking lots adjacent to the first road, the guidance destination being a destination to which the vehicle is guided,
display a counter indicating a total number of the vacant parking spaces of the first road via the display device, and
display a guide route from a current location of the vehicle to the guidance destination via the display device.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a processor” and “a memory configured to store instructions, wherein the instructions cause the processor to:”, they merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose navigation environment. The at least one processor and communicatively connected memory are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the abstract idea steps.
Regarding the additional limitations of “acquire a user destination input by a user of the vehicle via the display device”, “acquire, from a server, road location information about a plurality of roads located within a predetermined radius from the user destination”, “acquire, for each road of the plurality of roads, parking information about a plurality of vacant parking spaces included in one or more parking lots, the one or more parking lots being adjacent to the road”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that merely gather data to perform determining a route. In particular, the receive step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding the additional limitations of “display a counter indicating a total number of the vacant parking spaces of the first road via the display device” and “display a guide route from a current location of the vehicle to the guidance destination via the display device”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that merely involve post solution activity of displaying data. They are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of displaying information) and amount to mere post solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the “determine, for each road of the plurality of roads, a total number of the vacant parking spaces” and “identify, among the plurality of roads, a first road as a guidance destination in a case where the processor determines that a predetermined number of the vacant parking spaces is included in one or more parking lots adjacent to the first road, the guidance destination being a destination to which the vehicle is guided” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “a processor” and “a memory configured to store instructions, wherein the instructions cause the processor to:” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “acquire a user destination input by a user of the vehicle via the display device”, “acquire, from a server, road location information about a plurality of roads located within a predetermined radius from the user destination”, “acquire, for each road of the plurality of roads, parking information about a plurality of vacant parking spaces included in one or more parking lots, the one or more parking lots being adjacent to the road”, “display a counter indicating a total number of the vacant parking spaces of the first road via the display device” and “display a guide route from a current location of the vehicle to the guidance destination via the display device”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a navigation system. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp. 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 6-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3 and 6-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [independent claim].
Therefore, claims 1-8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathews (Publication US 2011/0224899 A1), in view of Adachi, et al. (Publication WO 2007/007377 A1), Zhao, et al. (Publication US 2018/0349792 A1), and Hall (US Patent 6,340,935 B1) (hereinafter referred to as “Mathews”, “Adachi”, “Zhao”, and “Hall”.)
As per claim 1 (representative of claims 4 and 5), Mathews discloses a navigation device of a vehicle including a display device [see at least Mathews [0001] "The present invention relates generally to a navigation system, and more particularly to a system for a navigation system with a parking space locator."; [0007] "...for displaying on a device."], the navigation device comprising:
a processor [see at least Mathews [0022] "…the hardware can be circuitry, processor, computer…"]; and
a memory configured to store instructions, wherein the instructions cause the processor to [see at least Mathews [0065] "The storage unit 304 can be a volatile memory, a nonvolatile memory, an internal memory, an external memory, or a combination thereof."]:
acquire a user destination input by a user of the vehicle via the display device [see at least Mathews [0033] "Referring now to FIG. 2, therein is shown a display interface 202 of the first device 102. The display interface 202 can depict a user's destination 204,…"; [0034] "The user's destination 204 is defined as the automatically or manually selected destination input to the navigation system 100."],
acquire, from a server, road location information about a plurality of …{street parking}… located within a predetermined radius from the user destination [see at least Mathews [0121] "…the parking space module 502 can determine every instance of the un-sensored street parking space 216 within a 10-minute radius of the user's destination 204 at walking speed." {If the street parking space can be determined, the street can be determined}; [0078] "…the first device 402 can be a server."; [0079] "…the navigation system 400 is shown with the second device 406 as a server..."],
acquire, … parking information about a plurality of vacant parking spaces included in one or more parking lots... [See at least Mathews [0121] "…the parking space module 502 can determine every instance of the un-sensored street parking space 216 within a 10-minute radius of the user's destination 204 at walking speed."],
… identify, among the plurality of roads, a first road as a guidance destination in a case where the processor determines that a predetermined number of the vacant parking spaces is included in one or more parking lots adjacent to the first road, the guidance destination being a destination to which the vehicle is guided [see at least Mathews [0036] "The travel path 208 is defined as the directions to proceed from the user's current position 206 to a parking space proximate to the user's destination 204. For example, the travel path 208 can be depicted on the display interface 202 as an arrow, a line, a series of text instructions, or a combination thereof. Also for example, the travel path 208 can include a road, ... a side street,"; [0042] "The suggested parking space 212 is defined as the unmetered street parking space 210 that is selected for parking in based on the user's destination 204 and other factors. For example, the suggested parking space 212 can be determined by the distance to the user's destination 204, the proximity to walkways to the user's destination 204, the number of streets that need to be crossed to reach the user's destination 204… .],
display a counter indicating a … number of the vacant parking spaces of the first road via the display device [see at least Mathews [0047] "...in addition to a percentage number depicting the actual parking condition 214 of an area around the unmetered street parking space 210, the outline around the area can be color-coded to make crowded areas easier to distinguish. Streets above 50% occupancy can be depicted with the actual parking condition 214 colored red. Streets below 50% occupancy can be depicted with the actual parking condition 214 colored green."], and
display a guide route from a current location of the vehicle to the guidance destination via the display device [see at least Mathews [0007] "...determining a travel path based on the actual parking condition from a user's current position to the unmetered street parking space for displaying on a device."; [0036] "...the travel path 208 can be depicted on the display interface 202 as an arrow, a line, a series of text instructions, or a combination thereof. Also for example, the travel path 208 can include a road, ... a side street, … ."]
Mathews fails to disclose … road location information about a plurality of roads located … {surrounding} … the user destination … and … for each road in the plurality of roads …. However, Adachi discloses this limitation [See at least Adachi [0017] "...A data acquisition unit for acquiring position reference information including section information having information for specifying a plurality of road sections surrounding the section,... ."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in Mathews to use … road location information about a plurality of roads located … {surrounding} … the user destination … and … for each road in the plurality of roads … as disclosed in Adachi with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of providing position information that can easily and accurately specify locations of points of interest. [See at least Adachi [0009].]
The combination of Mathews and Adachi fails to disclose … parking information about a plurality of vacant parking spaces included in one or more parking lots, the one or more parking lots being adjacent to the road … and … determine for each road … a total number of the vacant parking spaces … . However, Zhao teaches these limitations:
… parking information about a plurality of vacant parking spaces included in one or more parking lots, the one or more parking lots being adjacent to the road … [see at least Zhao [0041] "Although various embodiments are described with respect to parking spaces 105 that are on-street parking along road links or street segments, it is contemplated that the embodiments are also applicable to determining parking occupancy data for any parking facility (e.g., parking garages, parking lots, etc.) represented in a geographic database 107."] and
… determine for each road … a total number of the vacant parking spaces … [see at least Zhao [0041] "Although various embodiments are described with respect to parking spaces 105 that are on-street parking along road links or street segments, it is contemplated that the embodiments are also applicable to determining parking occupancy data for any parking facility (e.g., parking garages, parking lots, etc.)... ."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in the combination of Mathews and Adachi to use … parking information about a plurality of vacant parking spaces included in one or more parking lots, the one or more parking lots being adjacent to the road … and … determine for each road … a total number of the vacant parking spaces … as disclosed in Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of providing a better estimated time of arrival at a given destination depending on parking availability. [See at least Zhao [0060].]
The combination of Mathews, Adachi, and Zhao fails to disclose … determine, for each road …, a total number of the vacant parking spaces … and … display a counter indicating a total number of the vacant parking spaces of the first road … . However, Hall teaches these limitations [see at least Hall col 14, lines 3-4 "These displays 50 indicate the number of available parking spaces along the entire street."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in the combination of Mathews, Adachi, and Zhao to use … determine, for each road …, a total number of the vacant parking spaces … and … display a counter indicating a total number of the vacant parking spaces of the first road … as disclosed in Hall with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved management of parking facilities. [See at least Hall col. 1, lines 14-15.]
As per claim 3, the combination of Mathews, Adachi, Zhao, and Hall, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Mathews discloses … wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to, in a case where a plurality of first roads is identified, identify a second road among the plurality of first roads as the guidance destination, the second road being a closest road to the user destination among the plurality of the first roads [see at least Mathews FIG. 2 [0033] "Referring now to FIG. 2, therein is shown a display interface 202 of the first device 102. The display interface 202 can depict a suer's destination 204, a user's current position 206, a travel path 208, an unmetered street parking space 210, a suggested parking space 212, an actual parking condition 214, an un-sensored street parking space 216, and an estimated parking condition 218."; [0039] "... the unmetered street parking space 210 can be color-coded to show time limits such as green for a 20 minute limit or red for a no parking zone. Also for example, the unmetered street parking space 210 with no restrictions can be labeled with a time limit of days or hours or displayed with no restrictions indicated."]
As per claim 6, the combination of Mathews, Adachi, Zhao, and Hall, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Mathews discloses … wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to display a plurality of first roads as selections for the user via the display device in a case where the plurality of first roads is determined [see at least Mathews FIG. 2 [0033] "Referring now to FIG. 2, therein is shown a display interface 202 of the first device 102. The display interface 202 can depict a suer's destination 204, a user's current position 206, a travel path 208, an unmetered street parking space 210, a suggested parking space 212, an actual parking condition 214, an un-sensored street parking space 216, and an estimated parking condition 218."; [0039] "... the unmetered street parking space 210 can be color-coded to show time limits such as green for a 20 minute limit or red for a no parking zone. Also for example, the unmetered street parking space 210 with no restrictions can be labeled with a time limit of days or hours or displayed with no restrictions indicated."]
As per claim 7, the combination of Mathews, Adachi, Zhao, and Hall, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 6.
Mathews discloses … wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to identify a third road among the plurality of first roads as the guidance destination, the third road being a road selected by the user via the display device [see at least Mathews FIG. 2; [0125] "The physical transformation of the actual parking condition 214 results in movement in the physical world, such as people using the display interface 202 or vehicles, based on the operation of the navigation system 500. As the movement in the physical world occurs, the actual parking condition 214 is continually updated which results in a change in the movement in the physical world, such as people using the navigation system 500 changing course to a newly vacated parking space."]
As per claim 8, the combination of Mathews, Adachi, Zhao, and Hall, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 6.
Mathews discloses … wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to display, for each road of the plurality of first roads, the total number of the vacant parking spaces using a color corresponding to the total number [see at least Mathews FIG. 2; [0047] "...in addition to a percentage number depicting the actual parking condition 214 of an area around the unmetered street parking space 210, the outline around the area can be color-coded to make crowded areas easier to distinguish. Streets above 50% occupancy can be depicted with the actual parking condition 214 colored red. Streets below 50% occupancy can be depicted with the actual parking condition 214 colored green."]
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathews, in view of Adachi, Zhao, Hall, and Toma (Publication US 2011/0246054 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Toma”.)
As per claim 2, the combination of Mathews, Adachi, Zhao, and Hall, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Mathews, Adachi, Zhao, and Hall fails to disclose … wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to exclude the first road from the guidance destination in a case where a time required to arrive at the first road is longer than a predetermined time. However, Toma teaches this limitation [see at least Toma [0014] "...The route search is configured to exclude links having time restrictions in terms of the estimated time of arrival at the link on the basis of the time restriction information ... ."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed in the combination of Mathews, Adachi, Zhao, and Hall to use … wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to exclude the first road from the guidance destination in a case where a time required to arrive at the first road is longer than a predetermined time as disclosed in Toma with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of providing a route-searching system that can readily carry out search processing for a route that spans different time zones simply. [See at least Toma [0024].]
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 PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 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.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668