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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment and request for reconsideration of application 18/526,122 filed on December 01, 2023.
Claims 1-6 are amended.
Claims 7-13 are added.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Response to Arguments
. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NEGISHI (JP2019158594A) in view of JOO (KR20170064149A).
Regarding claim 1, NEGISHI discloses an information processing device (¶0008, “an information processing apparatus… the output of the facility proposed information”) configured to provide information to an occupant of a vehicle that is traveling to a destination (¶0008, “… the output of the facility proposed information), the information processing device comprising a processor configured to acquire destination congestion information (¶0008, “a congestion information acquisition unit for acquiring facility congestion information”), the destination congestion information indicating a degree of congestion at the destination (¶0046, “Taking into account the degree of congestion that is expected to increase, it is possible to accurately predict the degree of congestion of the facility at the estimated arrival time”), and determine whether to output information on a first rest facility based on the destination congestion information (¶0010, “ A stop-in facility proposal that generates stop-in facility proposal information based on the predicted congestion information at the time when it is predicted to arrive at the facility An … controlling the output of the facility proposed information drop generated by the treatment facility proposed information generating step”), the first rest facility being present between the current position of the vehicle and the destination (¶0033, “the facility registered in the facility information database 43 can be easily visited on the route from the current location to the destination”).
NEGISHI does not explicitly disclose but, JOO (KR20170064149A) teaches acquire a current position of the vehicle from a control unit of the vehicle, Wherein the processor is configured to output information suggesting stopping off a the first rest facility to an in-vehicle terminal of the vehicle in response to determining that the information on the first rest facility is to be output (¶0023, 0035).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the information apparatus disclosed in NEGISHI with the stopping off facility taught in JOO with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted improving the efficiency of the time reduction between current vehicle position and destination.
Regarding claim 2, NEGISHI discloses wherein the processor is configured to identify a second rest facility, the second rest facility being most recently used by the occupant, calculate a travel time, required to travel from the second rest facility to the destination, determine whether to output the information suggesting to stop off at on the first rest facility based on the destination congestion information and the travel time (¶0023, ¶0055),
JOO further teaches Acquire a current position of the vehicle from a control unit of the vehicle, Wherein the processor is configured to output information suggesting stopping off a the first rest facility to an in-vehicle terminal of the vehicle in response to determining that the information on the first rest facility is to be output (¶0023, 0035).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the information apparatus disclosed in NEGISHI with the stopping off facility taught in JOO with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted improving the efficiency of the time reduction between current vehicle position and destination.
Regarding claim 3, NEGISHI discloses wherein the processor is configured to acquire road congestion information, the road congestion information indicating a degree of congestion of along a route from the current position of the vehicle to the destination, and calculate the travel time based on at least on the road congestion information (¶0009).
Regarding claim 4, NEGISHI discloses wherein the processor is configured to acquire first information indicating a degree of congestion of the first rest facility, and when the first congestion is equal to or higher than a second threshold, search for another rest facility different from the first rest facility, the other rest facility being located between the current position of the vehicle and the destination, and output information on the other rest facility found as a result of the search (¶0055).
Regarding claim 5, NEGISHI discloses wherein the processor is configured to, when the destination is a facility, determine whether to output the information on the first rest facility based further on category information indicating a category of the facility (¶0016).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, NEGISHI discloses wherein the destination and the first rest facility belong to different facility categories (¶0037).
Regarding claim 10, NEGISHI discloses wherein the degree of congestion of the route is an index calculated based on the number of vehicles traveling per distance, or an index calculated based on a speed at which the vehicle can travel on the route from the current position to the destination (¶0024).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected using the art and rationale used to reject claim 1.
Claims 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NEGISHI (JP2019158594A) in view of JOO (KR20170064149A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of SHINOHARA (JP2022094625A).
Regarding claim 7, NEGISHI does not explicitly disclose but, SHINOHARA teaches wherein the degree of congestion of the destination includes an vacancy rate of parking lots at the destination or a utilization rate of toilets at the destination (¶0087).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the information apparatus disclosed in NEGISHI with the vacancy information taught in SHINOHARA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted providing highly accurate congestion information when offering drop-by facilities
Regarding claim 8, SHINOHARA further teaches the degree of congestion of the destination includes a utilization rate of seats in rest spaces or a utilization rate of dining spaces (¶0087).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the information apparatus disclosed in NEGISHI with the vacancy information taught in SHINOHARA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted providing highly accurate congestion information when offering drop-by facilities.
Regarding claim 11, SHINOHARA teaches wherein the first rest facility is a convenience store or a supermarket (¶0087).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the information apparatus disclosed in NEGISHI with the vacancy information taught in SHINOHARA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted providing highly accurate congestion information when offering drop-by facilities.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NEGISHI (JP2019158594A) in view of JOO (KR20170064149A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wang (2019/0078908).
Regarding claim 12, NEGISHI does not explicitly disclose but, Wang teaches wherein the other rest facility is a rest facility closest to the first rest facility (¶0005).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the information apparatus disclosed in NEGISHI with the distance of the rest facility information taught in Wang with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted providing highly accurate congestion information when offering drop-by facilities.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wongpiromsarn discloses identifying an object using one or more processors of a vehicle. The vehicle has a likelihood of collision with the object that is greater than a threshold. The processors generate multiple motion constraints for operating the vehicle. At least one motion constraint includes a minimum speed of the vehicle greater than zero to avoid a collision of the vehicle with the object. The processors identify one or more motion constraints for operating the vehicle to avoid a collision of the vehicle with the object. The processors operate the vehicle in accordance with the identified motion constraints (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 571-272-5109. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667