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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 09/12/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the limitations of “determining the map-based guidance information… and generating a control command to output the determined guidance information” is a practical application of the claimed invention. However, determining whether map-based guidance information or augmented-reality guidance information is more appropriate for a given distance from a guidance point is a task which can be performed in the human mind, and thus abstract. The step of generating a control command, meanwhile, is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant post-solution activity of generating a signal, without positive recitation of a control step. Therefore, this step fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 1-7, 9-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a device and a method. (Step 1: Yes.) Device claim 1 has been selected for further analysis.
The claim recites the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
A driving information display device comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive driving guidance information; and
output map-based guidance information or augmented reality-based guidance information based on the driving guidance information; and
a storage unit electrically and communicatively connected to the processor and configured to store road information and an algorithm executed by the processor;
wherein the processor is further configured to:
identify a driving route of the vehicle and a guidance point on the driving route based on the driving guidance information;
determine the augmented-reality based guidance information to be the guidance information to be output in response that a distance on the driving route from a location of the vehicle to the guidance point is equal to or shorter than a predetermined first reference distance;
determine the map-based guidance information to be the guidance information to be output in response that a distance on the driving route from a location of the vehicle to the guidance point exceeds the first reference distance; and
generate a control command to output the determined guidance information,
wherein information related to the guidance point includes information related to a lane guidance point at which there is provided guidance on a lane along which the vehicle needs to drive before the guidance point, and
wherein the processor is further configured to:
in response that a distance between the guidance point and the lane guidance point is equal to or longer than a predetermined third reference distance,
determine the guidance information to be output using a location of the lane guidance point.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this device is a processor which performs the task of determining the best display mode to use for guidance information on the basis of a received distance from a guidance point. This is a task which can be performed in the human mind; therefore, it falls under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claim is abstract.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; limitations that are not indicative of integration include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). The claim recites a processor and a storage unit; these are generic computer components which amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The claim further recites that the processor receives driving guidance information; however, this is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering. The claim further recites that the processor is configured to output guidance information and generate a control command to output said guidance information; however, this is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant post-solution activity of signal transmission. (Step 2A-Prong 2: No. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as previously mentioned, the recited additional elements amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or insignificant extra-solution activity. These elements are also recited at so high a level of generality as to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. (Step 2B: No. The claim does not provide significantly more.) Therefore, claim 1 (and the similarly abstract claim 10) is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 11 recite a further process of determining the guidance information to be output after passing through a guidance point. This is, like the previous determining process, an abstract idea. No additional elements are recited; therefore, claims 2 and 11 are not patent eligible.
Claims 3 and 12 further define the abstract idea of claims 2 and 11, and are thus abstract for the same reasons. Therefore, claims 3 and 12 are not patent eligible.
Claims 4-6 and 13-15 recite different steps by which the first reference distance is set, a process which can be performed in the human mind. These all additionally recite the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering, with no further elements. Therefore, claims 4-6 and 13-15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 7 and 16 recite a further process of determining the guidance information to be output when a re-search for a route is performed. This is, like the previous determining process, an abstract idea. No further additional elements are recited; therefore, claims 7 and 16 are not patent eligible.
Claims 9 and 18 recite a further process of determining whether the guidance point or a lane guidance point should be used in determining the guidance information, and further determining the guidance information to be output by using the determined guidance point. This is a process which can be performed in the human mind and no further elements have been recited; therefore, claims 9 and 18 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1: The closest applicable art, Chen et al. (US 20220212671, previously cited), teaches determining that “a distance between the vehicle and a front bifurcation is less than or equal to a longest lane changing operation distance”, corresponding to the determination of information related to a lane guidance point and a reference distance. However, the art of record fails to teach determining the guidance information to be output using a location of the lane guidance point based on the reference distance. For at least this reason, claim 1 would be allowable.
Regarding claims 2-7 and 9: The claims would be allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on allowable claim 1.
Regarding claim 10: Claim 10 recites the same limitations indicated as potentially allowable in claim 1, and would thus be allowable for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 11-16 and 18: The claims would be allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on allowable claim 10.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669