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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 11/10/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4, and 6-7 are currently pending.
Claims 1-4 are currently amended.
Claim 5 is canceled.
Claims 6 and 7 have been added.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindman et al. (US 20090150067 A1), herein after will be referred to as Lindman, in view of Kreft et al. (US 20140229285 A1), herein after will be referred to as Kreft.
Regarding Claim 1, Lindman teaches a navigation device mounted on a vehicle and providing a first user with guidance on a route to a first destination (A navigation device provides route guidance to a user; [0015]), the navigation device comprising:
at least one processor (A processor as a component of the navigation device; [0015]);
a memory storing map data (Memory that includes map data; [0016]),
calendar data (Calendar information stored in the memory; [0024]),
and a database in which a data package including a plurality of points is registered together with genre information for identifying genres of each of the points by the first user (A database with data representative of points of interest (POIs) and searching for alternatives of the same type or class; [0016] [0041]),
the calendar data indicating a travel plan of the first user (Navigation device suggest deadline information for arrival at destination based on appointment information, which constitutes a user’s travel plan; [0024]);
a global navigation satellite system receiver configured to detect a position of the vehicle (A global positioning satellite (GPS) receiver as a position information receiver for determining geographical location; [0027]); and
an output interface, wherein the at least one processor is programmed to automatically set the first destination and a first via point on the route to the first destination based on the calendar data (Output interfaces such as speakers driven by the audio controller and video displays where the navigation device suggest deadline information based on appointment or calendar information; [0015] [0019] [0024]),
predict a first required time from a first current position of the vehicle to the first via point based on the detected position of the vehicle and the map data (The processor determines the estimated arrival time, estimated departure time, and estimated time to next destination; [0026]),
determine whether the vehicle arrives at the first via point by a first arrival time based on the predicted first required time, the first arrival time being automatically set based on the calendar data (The navigation device determines if the itinerary needs to be updated or revised based on durations or travel times longer than planned derived from calendar information; [0030] [0024]),
search the database for a second via point of the same genre as the first via point…in response to the determination that the vehicle does not arrive at the first via point by the first arrival time (The navigation device searches for alternative destinations and determines if the alternative destination is in the same type or class as the original destination; [0031] [0034]),
predict a second required time from a second current position of the vehicle to the second via point based on the detected position of the vehicle and the map data (The estimated arrival time to the next destination is determined by the processor where the navigation device selects the alternative destination that allows for the most efficient itinerary; [0026] [0033]),
determine whether the vehicle arrives at the second via point by a second arrival time based on the predicted second required time (The navigation device selects the alternative destination for the most efficient itinerary which necessarily requires the processor to predict travel time to and determine arrival at the new destination; [0033]), and
present a message for proposing the second via point through the output interface to the first user in response to the determination that the vehicle arrives at the second via point by the second arrival time (The navigation device displays the list of alternative destinations to the user for selection; [0032]) .
Lindman does not explicitly teach the points of the data package being recommended by a travel specialist magazine, a travel site, a gourmet review site, or an influencer.
However, Kreft discloses a mapping system that uses curated third party points of interest (POI) data sets from specialized sources. Kreft teaches using POI data sets that users can download to their map program and that the sources of these data packages include travel guides and independent websites such as a restaurant ratings site ([0064], [0054], [0084]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation of points of the data package being recommended by a travel specialist magazines and a gourmet review site because the POI data sets are data packages that contain travel guides, analogous to a travel specialist magazine, and restaurant ratings site, equivalent to a gourmet review site.
Lindman and Kreft are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation systems. 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 Lindman to incorporate the teachings of using POI data sets that include travel guides and restaurant ratings as taught by Kreft based on the motivation to improve the quality and relevance of the alternative destinations provided to the user. This provides the benefit of a wide variety of alternative destinations and an enhanced user experience by offering higher quality recommendations.
Regarding Claim 2, Lindman and Kreft remains as applied above in claim 1. Lindman does not explicitly teach evaluation of the second via point by a second user.
However, Kreft discloses a system that provides POI data including user-based evaluations where information boxes or balloons show additional useful information such as user ratings ([0074]). Kreft further teaches downloading data sets from sources that are based on user evaluations such as Zagat’s Restaurant Ratings ([0084]). These teachings are equivalent to the evaluation of the second point by a second user because the user ratings are evaluations provided by other users. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Lindman to incorporate the teachings of using POI data that includes user evaluations as taught by Kreft based on the motivation to provide the user with additional information for their decision on an alternative destination. This provides the benefit of allowing the user to select a highly rated alternative that enhances the users experience.
Regarding Claim 4, Lindman and Kreft remains as applied above in claim 1. Lindman further teaches the second arrival time is obtained by subtracting a time for which the first user stays at the second via point (Calculating arrival and departure times by using the user’s expected stay duration at each via point; [0025]-[0026]) from a time when the second via point is closed (A deadline as the latest acceptable arrival time including hours of operation for each destination is tracked on the navigation device; [0024] [0027]).
Regarding Claim 7, Lindman and Kreft remains as applied above in claim 1. Lindman further teaches the at least one processor is further programmed to change the route such that the route passes through the second via point instead of the first via point (The navigation device provides the user with an opportunity to replace the destination with the alternative destination; [0032]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindman in view of Kreft, as applied in claim 1, and in further view of Monberg et al. (US 6523021 B1), herein after will be referred to as Monberg.
Regarding Claim 3, Lindman and Kreft remains as applied above in claim 1. Lindman does not explicitly teach the points of the data package are categorized into layers of genres in the genre information.
However, Kreft teaches a multi-tiered hierarchical scheme that identifies sets, sub-sets, and sub-sub-sets of various categories of a POI ([0138]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the multi-tiered hierarchical scheme contains POI’s that is categorized into layers of genres. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Lindman to incorporate the teachings of a multi-tiered hierarchical scheme that contains sets, sub-sets, and sub-sub-sets of various categories of POIs as taught by Kreft based on the motivation to provide an organized multi-tiered dataset for categorizing genres. This provides the benefit of improving the processing needs to find an alternative destination with an organized dataset.
Lindaman and Kreft does not explicitly teach the at least one processor is further programmed to set as the second via point a via point from a layer that is one level higher than a certain layer in a case where[[when]] there is no via point of the same genre as the first via point among the points of the data package in [[a]]the certain layer,
However, Monberg discloses a business directory search engine that uses a hierarchical taxonomy where the processor logic broadens the search to a higher layer when a search in a lower layer fails by first searching for a lead level keyword match and when that search is unsuccessful the search goes to the top level of the data taxonomy (Col 11 lines 36-60). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because when a search fails in a specific layer, it goes to a layer that is higher than the previous layer “top layer” of the data taxonomy.
Lindman, Kreft, and Monberg are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation and database systems for searching POIs. 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 Lindman and Kreft to incorporate the teachings of the data taxonomy and searching the top level if the search is unsuccessful as taught by Monberg based on the motivation to provide the alternative search a broader field when no options are available. This provides the benefit of providing a result to the user with a similar alternative as opposed to providing no results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindman in view of Kreft, as applied in claim 1, and in further view of Sheha et al. (US 7082365 B2), herein after will be referred to as Sheha.
Regarding Claim 6, Lindman and Kreft remains as applied above in claim 2. Lindman and Kreft does not explicitly teach the evaluation of the second via point includes a user satisfaction degree of the second user who has set the first destination in the past.
However, Sheha discloses a search system that personalizes POI recommendations based on the rations of others with a method to filter evaluations based on a “Similar User Rating Search” that allows users to correlate their own preferred POI with user-rating database to find the best match of unknown POIs that the user would prefer (Col 7 lines 55-59). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitations of user satisfaction degree of the second user because the similar users are second users and their ratings is equivalent to the user satisfaction degree. Sheha further teaches filtering the second users based on their past actions to find a relevant group where the search compiles a new subset of users that have similar ratings for various categories previously rated by the searcher (Col 7 lines 59-67). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of who has set the first destination in the past because it establishes the filtering of the pool of second users based on previous activity, analogous to the first destination, to find a similar group.
Lindman, Kreft, and Sheha are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation and database systems for searching POIs. 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 Lindman and Kreft to incorporate the teachings of a personalized search system that correlates the user’s ratings as taught by Sheha based on the motivation to improve the quality of the evaluations and alternative POIs to the user. This provides the benefit of suggesting higher relevant and targeted recommendations for an alternative via point.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
Hoever (US 20030158658 A1)
Schreier (US 10775181 B2)
Voronel (US 9222788 B2)
DeLorme (US 5948040 A)
Fregoso (US 20150241235 A1)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 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.
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 EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663