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 the Claims
This FINAL action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 16 December 2025. Claims 12-30 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claims 1-11 are canceled. Claims 29-30 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the Drawings objection, Claim Objections to claims 13, 15, 18, 22 and 24, rejection of 26-28 under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) associated with the Claim Interpretation, rejection of claims 12-28 under 35 USC 112(b) and rejection of claim 25 under 35 USC 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the office action of 16 September 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Drawings objection, Claim Objections to claims 13, 15, 18, 22 and 24, rejection of 26-28 under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) associated with the Claim Interpretation, rejection of claims 12-28 under 35 USC 112(b) and rejection of claim 25 under 35 USC 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the office action of 16 September 2025 have been withdrawn. Regarding the rejection of 26-28 under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) associated with the Claim Interpretation, see the updated Claim Interpretation below based on Applicant’s arguments and the cited specification in the arguments.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Objection to claim 12 as set forth in the office action of 16 September 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Claim 12 has not been amended as suggested, a different part has been amended instead resulting in an additional objection. See Claim Objections below.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 12-28 under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea as set forth in the office action of 16 September 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. The limitation “transmitting the message comprising the starting time of the predicted navigation route to the user of the vehicle responsive to a condition that the starting time of the predicted navigation route corresponds to a current time”, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not define the use of mental process concepts in such a manner that sufficiently limits the use of mental process into any practical application. Specifically, the transmitting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action of sending data/information based on the previous steps and/or condition(s)) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Applicant believes that given the transmitting is responsive to a condition that the starting time of the predicted navigation route corresponds to a current time means the step requires processing of obtaining a current time and determining whether the starting time of the predicted navigation route corresponds to the current time, regardless of whether the Examiner agrees with such requirement, Examiner notes that a person could be aware of the current time and determine whether the starting time previously determined corresponds to the current time or not, and merely transmitting a message based on such determination does not define the use of mental process concepts in such a manner that sufficiently limits the use of mental process into any practical application. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed to claims 16, 17, 19 and 20, Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Regardless of whether Examiner agrees “detecting movement of a vehicle” is a requirement of the claims or not, Examiner notes that a person can look at data available to them and determine whether a vehicle has started moving or not and merely terminating the method and/or a step of the method based on such is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action of no longer continuing the method and/or pausing the method) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed to claim 27, Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. A vehicle comprising the system that carries out the method, under broadest reasonable interpretation, merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). A vehicle comprising the system that carries out the method is recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the steps. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Regarding Applicant’s additional arguments directed to claim 30, Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. A server performing the steps of the method, merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). A server performing the steps of the method is recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the steps. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The limitation “determining ... a current vehicle location ... using stored user-specific data”, is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of mental process as it recites an abstract idea which is directed to mental process. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at data available such as stored/past data and determining information from the data. See 35 USC 101 below.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 12-28 under 35 USC 103 as directed to an abstract idea as set forth in the office action of 16 September 2025 have been considered and-
Regarding Applicant’s arguments associated with the limitation “transmitting the message comprising the starting time of the predicted navigation route to the user of the vehicle responsive to a condition that the starting time of the predicted navigation route corresponds to a current time”, Examiner notes the previously presented claim recited “transmitting the message comprising the starting time of the predicted navigation route to the user of the vehicle if the starting time of the predicted navigation route corresponds to a current time”, the use of the word “if” in a method claim renders the clause conditional and not required; however, in response to Examiner’s 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Applicant has amended all instances of “if” to instead recite “responsive to a condition that” and therefore now resulting in all corresponding limitations to not be contingent/conditional and thereby be required. As a result, Examiner points to the new ground(s) of rejection that does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument now that the “responsive to a condition that the starting time of the predicted navigation route corresponds to a current time” is required in the claim and no longer [conditional]/[not required].
Regarding Applicant’s arguments associated with claims 16, 17, 19 and 20, Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. See at least Figure 2 of Perkins, step (201) in Figure 2 includes the vehicle starting/moving and all the next steps of the method corresponding to Applicant’s claims are being performed while/after the vehicle is parked, e.g. after step (211); therefore, Perkins teaches that the method and/or a step of the method being performed is terminated when a movement of the vehicle is detected since when the vehicle starts/moves, there are other steps that start being performed and the steps after step (211) are no longer appropriate to be performed and cannot be performed since their corresponding conditions are no longer valid.
Specification
To clarify the antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, Examiner notes that:
“user-specific data” and “stored user-specific data” correspond to “user-related data” available from the mobility profile recited on page 7 of Applicant’s as-filed specification.
“traffic data” corresponds to “traffic information” on pages 15-16 of Applicant’s as-filed specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 12 and 30 should be amended to recite predicting/predict “, ..., a departure time window [[of]] for a start of a next journey, ..., and a probability [[for]] of the start of the next journey ...” for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 should be amended to recite “predicting, ..., a new departure time window ..., a new new destination in the predicted new time window” for consistency in claim language and since predicting is already recited in the limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 should be amended to recite “ascertaining a preferred navigation route of the user of the vehicle as the navigation route of the user responsive to a condition that . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 30 should be amended to recite “using the server to predict, based at least in part on the determined current vehicle location and the stored user-specific data, a departure time window ...” since such limitation is previously recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 30 should be amended to recite “ascertaining in the server [[a]] the predicted navigation route of the user of the vehicle to the predicted destination ...” for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “system is designed to carry out ...” in claim 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See page 2 of Applicant’s as-filed specification, e.g. any general purpose processor/computer.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “stored user-specific data”. The connection or lack thereof between “stored user-specific data” and the previously recited “user-specific data” is unclear, to the Examiner.
Claim 30 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “transmitting the message to a user, the message comprising the starting time of the predicted navigation route to the user of the vehicle responsive to a condition that the starting time of the predicted navigation route corresponds to a current time”. The sentence appears incomplete/broken and it is further unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring back to the same user previously recited by “a user” or not. Examiner suggests amending the limitation to recite “transmitting the message comprising the starting time of the predicted navigation route to the user of the vehicle responsive to a condition that the starting time of the predicted navigation route corresponds to a current time”.
Claims 13-29 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 12 and 30 are directed to a method. Therefore, claims 12 and 30 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
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 follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 30 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 30 as discussed here. Claim 30 recites:
A method for providing a message comprising a starting time of a predicted navigation route to a user of a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving in a server external to the vehicle a last vehicle position of a journey of the user using the vehicle; determining in the server a current vehicle location using the received last vehicle position of the journey of the user, and using stored user-specific data; using the server to predict, based at least in part on the determined current vehicle location and stored user-specific data, a departure time window of a start of a next journey, a destination of the next journey, and a probability for the start of the next journey to the predicted destination in the predicted departure time window for the user of the vehicle; responsive to a condition that the probability of the start of the next journey to the predicted destination in the predicted departure time window exceeds a specified threshold, then: ascertaining in the server a navigation route of the user of the vehicle to the predicted destination; determining in the server an estimated journey time of the ascertained navigation route of the user of the vehicle to the predicted destination based at least in part on traffic data; determining in the server a starting time of the predicted navigation route on the basis of the ascertained estimated journey time; and transmitting the message to a user, the message comprising the starting time of the predicted navigation route to the user of the vehicle responsive to a condition that the starting time of the predicted navigation route corresponds to a current time
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, all the determining ..., predicting ... and ascertaining ... limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
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 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 method for providing a message comprising a starting time of a predicted navigation route to a user of a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving in a server external to the vehicle a last vehicle position of a journey of the user using the vehicle; determining in the server a current vehicle location using the received last vehicle position of the journey of the user, and using stored user-specific data; using the server to predict, based at least in part on the determined current vehicle location and stored user-specific data, a departure time window of a start of a next journey, a destination of the next journey, and a probability for the start of the next journey to the predicted destination in the predicted departure time window for the user of the vehicle; responsive to a condition that the probability of the start of the next journey to the predicted destination in the predicted departure time window exceeds a specified threshold, then: ascertaining in the server a navigation route of the user of the vehicle to the predicted destination; determining in the server an estimated journey time of the ascertained navigation route of the user of the vehicle to the predicted destination based at least in part on traffic data; determining in the server a starting time of the predicted navigation route on the basis of the ascertained estimated journey time; and transmitting the message to a user, the message comprising the starting time of the predicted navigation route to the user of the vehicle responsive to a condition that the starting time of the predicted navigation route corresponds to a current time
For the following reason(s), 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 receiving ... and transmitting ... the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information/data for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of sending information/data from some of the previous steps), and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 12 and 25-30 further recite the “A method for providing a message comprising a starting time of a predicted navigation route to a user of a vehicle, the method comprising: ...”, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed on a computer or a control unit, carry out the method ...”, “A system for providing a message comprising a starting time of a predicted navigation route to a user of the vehicle, wherein the system is designed to carry out the method ...”, “A vehicle comprising the system ...” and “A mobile terminal device comprising the system ...”, “A method for providing a message comprising a starting time of a predicted navigation route to a user of a vehicle, the method comprising: ... in a/the server ... using the server ...” which merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 30 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 to 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 steps 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 discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving position are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. 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. The additional limitation of transmitting a message is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performance which in the instant application is transmitting a message is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 13-29 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 additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 13-29 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 30.
Therefore, claims 12-30 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.
Claims 12-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN108286980A – translation attached) in view of Perkins (US20180136003A1) in further view of Rob (US9557187B2).
Regarding claim 30, Liu discloses a method for providing a message comprising a predicted navigation route to a user of a vehicle (see at least [0002]), the method comprising: receiving in a server external to the vehicle a last vehicle position of a journey of the user using the vehicle (see at least [0012], [0025], [0027], [0044], [0090], [0140], [0201], [0204] and [0218]); determining in the server a current vehicle location using the received last vehicle position of the journey of the user, and using stored user-specific data (see at least [0012], [0014], [0017], [0026], [0027], [0044], [0090], [0140], [0201], [0204] and [0218]); using the server to predict, based at least in part on the determined current vehicle location and stored user-specific data, a departure time window of a start of a next journey, a destination of the next journey, and a probability for the start of the next journey to the predicted destination in the predicted departure time window for the user of the vehicle (see at least [0022], [0025], [0028], [0029], [0031], [0034], [0035], [0041], [0042], [0044], [0084], [0090], [0101], [0140], [0201], [0204] and [0218]); responsive to a condition that the probability of the start of the next journey to the predicted destination in the predicted departure time window exceeds a specified threshold, then: ascertaining in the server a navigation route of the user of the vehicle to the predicted destination (see at least [0028], [0034], [0035], [0041], [0042], [0044], [0056], [0090], [0140], [0201], [0204] and [0218]); ascertaining/determining in the server an estimated journey time of the ascertained navigation route of the user of the vehicle to the predicted destination (see at least [0028], [0034], [0035], [0041], [0042] and [0056]); and transmitting the message to a user, the message comprising the predicted navigation route to the user of the vehicle (see at least [0056]).
Liu does not explicitly disclose a method for providing the message further comprising a starting time of the predicted navigation route; determining the estimated journey time based at least in part on traffic data; determining in the server a starting time of the predicted navigation route on the basis of the ascertained estimated journey time; and transmitting the message comprising the starting time of the predicted navigation route to the user of the vehicle responsive to a condition that the starting time of the predicted navigation route corresponds to a current time.
Perkins teaches a method for providing the message further comprising a starting time of the predicted navigation route; determining the estimated journey time based at least in part on traffic data; determining in the server a starting time of the predicted navigation route on the basis of the ascertained estimated journey time; and transmitting the message comprising the starting time of the predicted navigation route to the user of the vehicle (see at least [0040]-[0042], [0047]-[0054], [0058], [0063] and [0080]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Perkins which teaches a method for providing the message further comprising a starting time of the predicted navigation route; determining the estimated journey time based at least in part on traffic data; determining in the server a starting time of the predicted navigation route on the basis of the ascertained estimated journey time; and transmitting the message comprising the starting time of the predicted navigation route to the user of the vehicle since they are both directed to providing a message comprising information about a predicated navigation route to a user and incorporation of the teachings of Perkins would increase reliability and user comfort of the overall system.
Rob teaches transmitting the message comprising the starting time responsive to a condition that the starting time of the predicted navigation route corresponds to a current time (see at least lines 59-65 of Col. 13 and claim 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Liu as modified by Perkins to incorporate the teachings of Rob which teaches transmitting the message comprising the starting time responsive to a condition that the starting time of the predicted navigation route corresponds to a current time since they are directed to providing a message comprising information about a predicated navigation route to a user and incorporation of the teachings of Rob would increase efficiency and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is commensurate in scope with claim 30. See above for rejection of claim 30.
Regarding claim 13, Liu as modified by Perkins and Rob discloses responsive to a condition that the probability of the start of the next journey to the predicted destination in the predicted departure time window does not exceed a specified threshold, then: predicting, on the basis of the determined current vehicle location after expiry of a first, specified time interval, a new departure time window for the start of the next journey, a newly predicted destination of the next journey, and a probability of the start of the next journey to the newly predicted destination in the predicted new time window for the user of the vehicle (see at least Liu [0028], [0034], [0035], [0041]-[0043], [0084] and [0101]).
Regarding claim 14, Liu as modified by Perkins and Rob discloses wherein ascertaining the navigation route of the user of the vehicle to the predicted destination comprises: ascertaining a preferred navigation route of the user of the vehicle as the navigation route of the user if the preferred navigation route can be determined; and ascertaining a fastest navigation route as the navigation route of the user responsive to a condition that no preferred navigation route of the user of the vehicle has been ascertained (see at least Liu [0007], [0045]-[0056] and [0090]-[0093])).
Regarding claim 15, Liu as modified by Perkins and Rob discloses wherein ascertaining the estimated journey time of the ascertained navigation route of the user of the vehicle to the predicted destination comprises: determining a starting time for ascertaining the estimated journey time of the ascertained navigation route of the user of the vehicle to the predicted destination; and ascertaining the estimated journey time of the ascertained navigation route of the user of the vehicle to the predicted destination as soon as the starting time for ascertaining the estimated journey time of the ascertained navigation route is reached (see at least Liu [0007], [0045]-[0056] and [0090]-[0093])).
Regarding claim 16, Liu does not explicitly disclose terminating the method, responsive to a condition that a movement of the vehicle is detected. However, Perkins teaches terminating the method, responsive to a condition that a movement of the vehicle is detected (see at least Figure 2, abstract, [0005], [0040]-[0042] and [0046]-[0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Perkins which teaches terminating the method, responsive to a condition that a movement of the vehicle is detected since they are both directed to providing a message comprising information about a predicated navigation route to a user and incorporation of the teachings of Perkins would increase efficiency of the overall system.
Regarding claim 17, Liu does not explicitly disclose terminating a step of the method of claim 12 being performed when the movement of the vehicle is detected, responsive to the condition that the movement of the vehicle is detected. However, Perkins teaches terminating a step of the method of claim 12 being performed when the movement of the vehicle is detected, responsive to the condition that the movement of the vehicle is detected (see at least Figure 2, abstract, [0005], [0040]-[0042] and [0046]-[0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Perkins which teaches terminating a step of the method of claim 12 being performed when the movement of the vehicle is detected, responsive to the condition that the movement of the vehicle is detected since they are both directed to providing a message comprising information about a predicated navigation route to a user and incorporation of the teachings of Perkins would increase efficiency of the overall system.
Regarding claims 18-20, claims 18-20 are commensurate in scope with claims 15-17, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 15-17.
Regarding claim 21, Liu as modified by Perkins and Rob discloses monitoring for the start of the next journey after the message has been transmitted to the user of the vehicle; responsive to a condition that the next journey does not start after the message is provided to the user of the vehicle, then: predicting, on the basis of the determined current vehicle location after expiry of a second, specified time interval, a new departure time window for the start of the next journey, a new destination of the next journey, and a new probability of the start of the next journey to the predicted new destination in the new predicted time window for the user of the vehicle (see at least Liu [0028], [0034], [0035], [0041]-[0043], [0056], [0084], [0092]-[0093] and [0101]).
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is commensurate in scope with claim 15. See above for rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claim 23, Liu as modified by Perkins and Rob discloses wherein the departure time window is increased responsive to a condition that no departure time window has been predicted, for which a probability of the start of the next journey to the predicted destination in the predicted departure time window exceeds the specified threshold (see at least Liu [0015], [0025], [0028], [0031], [0034], [0035], [0041]-[0043], [0084] and [0101]).
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is commensurate in scope with claim 15. See above for rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claim 25, Liu discloses the method as claimed in claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above). Liu does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed on a computer or a control unit, carry out the method. Perkins teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed on a computer or a control unit, carry out the method (see at least Figure 1, [0017] and [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Perkins which teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed on a computer or a control unit, carry out the method since they are both directed to providing a message comprising information about a predicated navigation route to a user and incorporation of the teachings of Perkins would increase utility of the overall system.
Regarding claim 26, Liu discloses the method as claimed in claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above). Liu does not explicitly disclose a system for providing a message comprising a starting time of a predicted navigation route to a user of the vehicle, wherein the system is designed to carry out the method. Perkins teaches a system for providing a message comprising a starting time of a predicted navigation route to a user of the vehicle, wherein the system is designed to carry out the method (see at least Figure 1, [0017] and [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Perkins which teaches a system for providing a message comprising a starting time of a predicted navigation route to a user of the vehicle, wherein the system is designed to carry out the method since they are both directed to providing a message comprising information about a predicated navigation route to a user and incorporation of the teachings of Perkins would increase utility of the overall system.
Regarding claim 27, Liu does not explicitly disclose a vehicle comprising the system for providing a message comprising a starting time of a predicted navigation route to a user of the vehicle as claimed in claim 26. Perkins teaches a vehicle comprising the system for providing a message comprising a starting time of a predicted navigation route to a user of the vehicle as claimed in claim 26 (see at least Figure 1, [0017] and [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Perkins which teaches a vehicle comprising the system for providing a message comprising a starting time of a predicted navigation route to a user of the vehicle as claimed in claim 26 since they are both directed to providing a message comprising information about a predicated navigation route to a user and incorporation of the teachings of Perkins would increase utility of the overall system.
Regarding claim 28, Liu does not explicitly disclose a mobile terminal device comprising the system for providing a message comprising a starting time of a predicted navigation route to a user of the vehicle as claimed in claim 26. Perkins teaches a mobile terminal device comprising the system for providing a message comprising a starting time of a predicted navigation route to a user of the vehicle as claimed in claim 26 (see at least Figure 1, [0017], [0020], [0030], [0036] and [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Perkins which teaches a mobile terminal device comprising the system for providing a message comprising a starting time of a predicted navigation route to a user of the vehicle as claimed in claim 26 since they are both directed to providing a message comprising information about a predicated navigation route to a user and incorporation of the teachings of Perkins would increase utility of the overall system.
Regarding claim 29, Liu discloses obtaining traffic data related to the ascertained navigation route (see at least [0056], [0057], [0216] and [0221]). The rest of claim 29 is commensurate in scope with claims 15 and 30. See above for rejection of claims 15 and 30.
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 SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667