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). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1 on line 13, the phrase “orexit” should be “or exit. 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:
"queue entry determining unit" in claims 1, 2
"weight value setting unit" in claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9
"entry or exit guiding unit" in claim 1
"driver pattern detector" in claims 5, 6
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.
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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1 and 11 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 1 and 11 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claims are directed toward an apparatus and a method including at least one step.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1. An apparatus for driver pattern-based route guidance, the apparatus comprising:
a queue entry determining unit configured to determine whether a driver's vehicle has entered the waiting queue at a beginning of a waiting queue of a first entry or exit road;
a weight value setting unit configured to, when the vehicle has not entered the waiting queue, assign a first weight value to a first route passing through the first entry or exit road based on a currently remaining distance from the driver's vehicle to the first entry or exit road and driver's personal pattern;
and an entry or exit route guiding unit configured to guide a customized entry or exit route to the driver by comparing the first weight value of the first route with a second weight value of a second route passing through a predetermined second entry or exit road.
The method in claim 1, specifically the limitations emphasized above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of determining whether a driver's vehicle has entered the waiting queue, assigning a first weight value, and determining guidance for a customized entry or exit route to the driver. This is equivalent to a person mentally evaluating whether the vehicle has entered the queue, attributing a first weight value, and mentally determining a customized entry or exit route.
Claim 11. A method for driver pattern-based route guidance, comprising
providing a route including at least one entry or exit road to a destination through a navigation system;
determining whether a driver's vehicle has entered the waiting queue at a beginning of a waiting queue of a first entry or exit road;
assigning a first weight value to a first route passing through the first entry or exit road based on a currently remaining distance from the driver's vehicle to the first entry or exit road and driver's personal pattern, when the vehicle has not entered the waiting queue;
and guiding a customized route to the driver by comparing the first weight value of the first route with a second weight value of a second route passing through a predetermined second entry or exit road.
The method in claim 11, specifically the limitations emphasized above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of determining whether a driver's vehicle has entered the waiting queue, assigning a first weight value, and determining guidance for a customized entry or exit route to the driver. This is equivalent to a person mentally evaluating whether the vehicle has entered the queue, attributing a first weight value, and mentally determining a customized entry or exit route.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract “idea”).
Claim 1. An apparatus for driver pattern-based route guidance, the apparatus comprising:
a queue entry determining unit configured to determine whether a driver's vehicle has entered the waiting queue at a beginning of a waiting queue of a first entry or exit road;
a weight value setting unit configured to, when the vehicle has not entered the waiting queue, assign a first weight value to a first route passing through the first entry or exit road based on a currently remaining distance from the driver's vehicle to the first entry or exit road and driver's personal pattern;
and an entry or exit route guiding unit configured to guide a customized entry or exit route to the driver by comparing the first weight value of the first route with a second weight value of a second route passing through a predetermined second entry or exit road.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The limitations “An apparatus for driver pattern-based route guidance, the apparatus comprising: a queue entry determining unit configured to”, “a weight value setting unit configured to”, and “an entry or exit route guiding unit configured to” are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The apparatus for driver pattern-based route guidance, the apparatus comprising: a queue entry determining unit, the weight value setting unit, and the entry or exit route guiding unit merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The apparatus for driver pattern-based route guidance, the apparatus comprising: a queue entry determining unit, the weight value setting unit, and the entry or exit route guiding unit are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the determining, assigning, and guiding steps. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 11. A method for driver pattern-based route guidance, comprising
providing a route including at least one entry or exit road to a destination through a navigation system;
determining whether a driver's vehicle has entered the waiting queue at a beginning of a waiting queue of a first entry or exit road;
assigning a first weight value to a first route passing through the first entry or exit road based on a currently remaining distance from the driver's vehicle to the first entry or exit road and driver's personal pattern, when the vehicle has not entered the waiting queue;
and guiding a customized route to the driver by comparing the first weight value of the first route with a second weight value of a second route passing through a predetermined second entry or exit road.
Claim 11 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The step of “providing a route including at least one entry or exit road to a destination through a navigation system” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of extra solution activity.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claims 1 and 11 do 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 claims do 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 limitation(s) of “An apparatus for driver pattern-based route guidance, the apparatus comprising: a queue entry determining unit configured to”, “a weight value setting unit configured to”, and “an entry or exit route guiding unit configured to” is/are merely means to apply the exception and do not amount to “significantly more”, as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “providing a route including at least one entry or exit road to a destination through a navigation system” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the providing, determining, assigning, and guiding steps are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures |, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TL! Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and O/P Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Thus, since claims 1 and 11 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 11 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more.
As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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) 1-5, 7-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOSHIHIRO (JP 2006252533 A) in view of Forstall (US 20090005965 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, TOSHIHIRO teaches An apparatus for driver pattern-based route guidance, the apparatus comprising: a queue entry determining unit configured to determine whether a driver's vehicle has entered the waiting queue at a beginning of a waiting queue of a first entry or exit road (See at least paragraph [0001], “The present invention relates to a navigation system that sets an optimum route to a destination even when a queue is formed at the destination, and a terminal device, a center device, a queue detection method, a program that executes the navigation system, and a program therefor The present invention relates to a recording medium that records”, paragraph [0002], “In general, an in-vehicle navigation system is equipped with a route guidance function that enables a driver to travel from a current position of a vehicle toward a destination desired by a driver without making a mistake”, and paragraph [0020], “Further, in the terminal device of the present invention, the queue detection unit determines whether or not the destination of the facility entrance of the road along the facility is congested, or the road on the extension line in the traveling direction of the branch or intersection is congested. The position information of the queue is detected based on the result of determining whether or not it is.” The system determines whether a vehicle has entered a waiting queue by detecting congestion at a facility entrance or branch based on vehicle position and movement, thereby determining whether the vehicle is located within the queue region at the beginning of the queue.); (See at least paragraph [0020], “Further, in the terminal device of the present invention, the queue detection unit determines whether or not the destination of the facility entrance of the road along the facility is congested, or the road on the extension line in the traveling direction of the branch or intersection is congested. The position information of the queue is detected based on the result of determining whether or not it is.” The system determines whether a vehicle has entered a waiting queue by detecting congestion at a facility entrance or branch based on vehicle position and movement, thereby determining whether the vehicle is located within the queue region at the beginning of the queue.); and an entry or exit route guiding unit configured to guide a customized entry or exit route to the driver (See at least paragraph [0153], “By the above, it is possible to detect the queue end position of the entrance / exit of the vehicle provided in the facility, and to perform a route search using the end position as the destination, which allows the driver to detour to the end of the queue. There is no need to search each time, and it is possible to save extra time. As a result, it also contributes to reducing traffic congestion in the surrounding area” and paragraph [0154], “In this embodiment, the center device and the in-vehicle terminal device constitute a navigation system. However, the in-vehicle terminal device may be a mobile terminal such as a personal computer, a mobile phone, or a PDA, and in short, is movable. Any terminal device may be used.”).
TOSHIHIRO does not explicitly disclose, however, Forstall, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a weight value setting unit configured to,(See at least paragraph [0037], “FIG. 3 is a block diagram 300 of an example implementation of the mobile device 100 of FIG. 1. The mobile device 100 can include a memory interface 302, one or more data processors, image processors and/or central processing units 304, and a peripherals interface 306. The memory interface 302, the one or more processors 304 and/or the peripherals interface 306 can be separate components or can be integrated in one or more integrated circuits. The various components in the mobile device 100 can be coupled by one or more communication buses or signal lines”, paragraph [0071], “In further implementations, the route information can include map information received from map system 490. In these implementations, the map information can include distances associated with route progressions, traffic control devices associated with route progressions or portions of route progressions, speed limits associated with route progressions, etc. Preferences can be provided which use map information as comparison points between potential routes. For example, if the user indicates a preference for neighborhood driving versus highway driving, the map information can be used to reorder the potential routes based upon such a user preference. The map information can therefore be used to weight and compare routes based on the preferences. In other implementations, a graphical representation of disfavor can be applied to presented routes. For example, a color spectrum might be applied to the route presentation, whereby green is used to depict most favorable routes, while red can be used to depict most disfavored routes”, and paragraph [0084], “In those implementations including a strength associated with a user preference, the analysis engine can use the strength to weight the route progressions and use the weighted route progressions to compare routes. For example, the user's desire to avoid traffic can be rated on a scale from 1 to 10, with a rating of "1" corresponding to the user being neutral to traffic, and a rating of "10" corresponding to a strong desire on the part of the user to avoid traffic. In examples where the user indicates a strong desire to avoid traffic, the analysis engine can weight the route progressions with traffic more negatively than those with light traffic, thereby making it more likely that an analysis engine (e.g., analysis engine 430) will recommend routes having lighter traffic. However, in the implementations that include a strength associated with the user preferences, the strengths of other preferences could outweigh other preferences depending on a strength associated with the other preferences.”); and an entry or exit route guiding unit configured to guide a customized entry or exit route to the driver by comparing the first weight value of the first route with a second weight value of a second route passing through a predetermined second entry or exit road (See at least paragraph [0087], “Table 1 below in conjunction with FIG. 5B illustrates an example selection of a route progressions for a portion of the route based on such scores and weights. As shown in FIG. 5B, a step by step progressive algorithm can be used to identify a route based on preferences. For example, the first route progression can be chosen by comparing route progressions A1, A2 and A3. The scores can be weighted by multiplying the scores with the preference strengths, respectively, and summing the weightings to provide a cumulative weighted score for each of route progressions A1, A2 and A3. Based on Table 1, the user has indicated a strength of 10 for scenery preference and a strength of 8 for city preferences. Based on the weighted score derived from the scenery score and associated preference strength as well as the city score and associated preference strength, route progression A2 would be selected. Additional route progressions beginning at the destination of A2 could then be identified and evaluated”, paragraph [0093], “At stage 630, the route is analyzed based on user preferences. The route can be analyzed, for example, using an analysis engine (e.g., analysis engine 430 of FIG. 4). The analysis can receive user preferences and use the preferences to weight the route progressions included in the identified routes. The weighted route progressions can be used to rearrange the identified routes based on the user preferences. In some implementations, the analysis can retrieve route information from several different sources (e.g., history data store 460, traffic information system 480, map system 490, of FIG. 4) to use in conjunction with the preference information”, and paragraph [0094], “At stage 630, the route is analyzed based on user preferences. The route can be analyzed, for example, using an analysis engine (e.g., analysis engine 430 of FIG. 4). The analysis can receive user preferences and use the preferences to weight the route progressions included in the identified routes. The weighted route progressions can be used to rearrange the identified routes based on the user preferences. In some implementations, the analysis can retrieve route information from several different sources (e.g., history data store 460, traffic information system 480, map system 490, of FIG. 4) to use in conjunction with the preference information.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of TOSHIHIRO with the teachings of Forstall such that the navigation system of TOSHIHIRO is further configured to utilize a weight value setting unit configured to assign a first weight value to a first route passing through the first entry or exit road based on a currently remaining distance from the driver's vehicle to the first entry or exit road and driver's personal pattern and compare the first weight value of the first route with a second weight value of a second route passing through a predetermined second entry or exit road, as taught by Forstall (See paragraph [0037], [0071], [0084], [0087], [0093], [0094].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be directing a user to preferable routes based on user preferences, as taught by Forstall (See paragraph [0006].).
Regarding Claim 2, TOSHIHIRO and Forstall teach The apparatus of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. TOSHIHIRO teaches wherein the queue entry determining unit is configured to receive a location of the driver's vehicle on a lane-by-lane basis through a global navigation satellite system (GNSS), and to determine whether the vehicle has entered lane of the waiting queue of the first entry or exit road based on the received location of the vehicle on a lane-by-lane basis (See at least paragraph [0080], “In FIG. 1, an in-vehicle terminal device 101 includes a digital map database 110 as a map data storage unit in which a road network including information about entrances and exits of vehicles is stored in facility information on map data, and an in-vehicle terminal device 101. A sensor unit 111 having a GPS receiver, a gyro sensor, and the like for detecting the position and traveling direction of the vehicle and the like, and a position information calculating unit 112 for calculating the vehicle position information and the traveling direction based on the sensor information from the sensor unit 111, It has” and paragraph [0082], “Specifically, as shown in FIG. 3, the queue detection unit 113 of the present embodiment uses the speed information and the digital map database 110 for the vehicle position information and the traveling direction calculated by the position information calculation unit 112. While referring to the map data regarding the entrance of the facility, the traffic information at the destination of the entrance of the facility of the traffic information storage unit 117, and the detection result detected by the destination periphery information detection unit 115, the counterclockwise along the section including the facility As a result of the determination by the first determination unit 1131 and the first determination unit 1131 that determine whether or not the vehicle is traveling on the road traveling in the direction, it is determined whether or not the vehicle moves within a predetermined distance within a predetermined time. A queue for entering the entrance of the facility by adding the weighting factor to the evaluation value (that is, the train that is generated to enter the facility unlike ordinary traffic jams) A second determination unit 1132 that determines whether or not the current position is from the evaluation value, and determines position information at the time when measurement of a predetermined time is started as end position information of the queue; and And a matrix waiting time measuring unit 1133 that measures a required time (hereinafter referred to as a matrix waiting time) from the time when measurement is started until it reaches the entrance of the facility.”).
With respect to claim 20, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 2, which is commensurate in scope to claim 20, with claim 2 being drawn to a route guidance system and claim 20 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding Claim 3, TOSHIHIRO and Forstall teach The apparatus of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. TOSHIHIRO teaches wherein the weight value setting unit is configured to assign the first weight value by additionally considering a congestion situation or a vehicle saturation degree of the waiting queue (See at least paragraph [0082], “Specifically, as shown in FIG. 3, the queue detection unit 113 of the present embodiment uses the speed information and the digital map database 110 for the vehicle position information and the traveling direction calculated by the position information calculation unit 112. While referring to the map data regarding the entrance of the facility, the traffic information at the destination of the entrance of the facility of the traffic information storage unit 117, and the detection result detected by the destination periphery information detection unit 115, the counterclockwise along the section including the facility As a result of the determination by the first determination unit 1131 and the first determination unit 1131 that determine whether or not the vehicle is traveling on the road traveling in the direction, it is determined whether or not the vehicle moves within a predetermined distance within a predetermined time. A queue for entering the entrance of the facility by adding the weighting factor to the evaluation value (that is, the train that is generated to enter the facility unlike ordinary traffic jams) A second determination unit 1132 that determines whether or not the current position is from the evaluation value, and determines position information at the time when measurement of a predetermined time is started as end position information of the queue; and And a matrix waiting time measuring unit 1133 that measures a required time (hereinafter referred to as a matrix waiting time) from the time when measurement is started until it reaches the entrance of the facility”, paragraph [0083], “Here, as described above, the queue detection unit 113 determines the weighting factor based on the moving distance of the vehicle within a predetermined time. For example, the weight is determined depending on whether the moving distance within one minute is 50 m or less. The coefficient can be determined”, and paragraph [0084], “For example, in traffic information guidelines, traffic congestion is defined as 10 km / h or less, and when waiting for a parking lot that is a queue when the destination is a parking lot, the traffic jam is slower than the traffic jam and slower than the walking speed. Therefore, assuming that the vehicle travels at a speed of 3 km or less when waiting for a parking lot, the vehicle moves 50 m or less in one minute. Therefore, in this way, if the movement is within 50 m per minute, it can be determined as a traffic jam.”).
With respect to claim 12, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 3, which is commensurate in scope to claim 12, with claim 3 being drawn to a route guidance system and claim 12 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding Claim 4, TOSHIHIRO and Forstall teach The apparatus of claim 3, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. TOSHIHIRO teaches wherein the weight value setting unit is configured to calculate the vehicle saturation degree in real time based on a length of the waiting queue, the number of waiting vehicles, an average moving speed of the waiting vehicles, and traffic information (See at least paragraph [0082], “Specifically, as shown in FIG. 3, the queue detection unit 113 of the present embodiment uses the speed information and the digital map database 110 for the vehicle position information and the traveling direction calculated by the position information calculation unit 112. While referring to the map data regarding the entrance of the facility, the traffic information at the destination of the entrance of the facility of the traffic information storage unit 117, and the detection result detected by the destination periphery information detection unit 115, the counterclockwise along the section including the facility As a result of the determination by the first determination unit 1131 and the first determination unit 1131 that determine whether or not the vehicle is traveling on the road traveling in the direction, it is determined whether or not the vehicle moves within a predetermined distance within a predetermined time. A queue for entering the entrance of the facility by adding the weighting factor to the evaluation value (that is, the train that is generated to enter the facility unlike ordinary traffic jams) A second determination unit 1132 that determines whether or not the current position is from the evaluation value, and determines position information at the time when measurement of a predetermined time is started as end position information of the queue; and And a matrix waiting time measuring unit 1133 that measures a required time (hereinafter referred to as a matrix waiting time) from the time when measurement is started until it reaches the entrance of the facility”, paragraph [0083], “Here, as described above, the queue detection unit 113 determines the weighting factor based on the moving distance of the vehicle within a predetermined time. For example, the weight is determined depending on whether the moving distance within one minute is 50 m or less. The coefficient can be determined”, and paragraph [0084], “For example, in traffic information guidelines, traffic congestion is defined as 10 km / h or less, and when waiting for a parking lot that is a queue when the destination is a parking lot, the traffic jam is slower than the traffic jam and slower than the walking speed. Therefore, assuming that the vehicle travels at a speed of 3 km or less when waiting for a parking lot, the vehicle moves 50 m or less in one minute. Therefore, in this way, if the movement is within 50 m per minute, it can be determined as a traffic jam.” The system calculates the vehicle saturation degree in real time using vehicle movement distance and speed within a predetermined time together with traffic information at the entrance of the facility, where the queue, movement distance, and speed are indicative of the length of the waiting queue and the number of waiting vehicles, and the speed over time reflects the average moving speed of the waiting vehicles.).
With respect to claim 13, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 4, which is commensurate in scope to claim 13, with claim 4 being drawn to a route guidance system and claim 13 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding Claim 5, TOSHIHIRO and Forstall teach The apparatus of claim 4, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. TOSHIHIRO teaches (See at least paragraph [0080], “In FIG. 1, an in-vehicle terminal device 101 includes a digital map database 110 as a map data storage unit in which a road network including information about entrances and exits of vehicles is stored in facility information on map data, and an in-vehicle terminal device 101. A sensor unit 111 having a GPS receiver, a gyro sensor, and the like for detecting the position and traveling direction of the vehicle and the like, and a position information calculating unit 112 for calculating the vehicle position information and the traveling direction based on the sensor information from the sensor unit 111, It has”, paragraph [0081], “Furthermore, the in-vehicle terminal device 101 has information on whether the vehicle is located on the road along the section including the facility, the location information of the vehicle, the information on the entrance / exit of the facility in the map data, the traffic congestion information ahead of the entrance / exit of the facility, A queue detection unit 113 is provided for detecting whether a queue is formed at the entrance of the facility based on the speed information of the vehicle at that time”, and paragraph [0082], “Specifically, as shown in FIG. 3, the queue detection unit 113 of the present embodiment uses the speed information and the digital map database 110 for the vehicle position information and the traveling direction calculated by the position information calculation unit 112. While referring to the map data regarding the entrance of the facility, the traffic information at the destination of the entrance of the facility of the traffic information storage unit 117, and the detection result detected by the destination periphery information detection unit 115, the counterclockwise along the section including the facility As a result of the determination by the first determination unit 1131 and the first determination unit 1131 that determine whether or not the vehicle is traveling on the road traveling in the direction, it is determined whether or not the vehicle moves within a predetermined distance within a predetermined time. A queue for entering the entrance of the facility by adding the weighting factor to the evaluation value (that is, the train that is generated to enter the facility unlike ordinary traffic jams) A second determination unit 1132 that determines whether or not the current position is from the evaluation value, and determines position information at the time when measurement of a predetermined time is started as end position information of the queue; and And a matrix waiting time measuring unit 1133 that measures a required time (hereinafter referred to as a matrix waiting time) from the time when measurement is started until it reaches the entrance of the facility.”).
TOSHIHIRO does not explicitly disclose, however, Forstall, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising a driver pattern detector configured to detect the driver's personal pattern through a driver pattern model modelled based on driver's driving record, wherein the driver pattern detector is configured to detect the driver's personal pattern based on an average entry distance, which is an average value of (See at least paragraph [0057], “In some implementations, the destination engine 410 can use history information to recognize patterns, and can use preference information to determine which of a plurality of destinations the user intends (e.g., a user might indicate a preference for destination information derived from calendar information over destination information derived from date information). In some implementations, the destination engine 410 can automatically recognize patterns without user input. In other implementations, the destination engine 410 can automatically recognize navigation patterns and allow users to confirm or reject a destination through a user interface” and paragraph [0066], “In some implementations, the route information can include historical data. For example, historical data can include information about the average time associated with navigating a route progression. The average time associated with each of the route progressions which are included in a route can combined to provide an estimated total time to navigate the route. The route may then be compared to similarly analyzed routes based on estimated total time to navigate the other routes, which can be used to recommend a route to a user.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of TOSHIHIRO with the teachings of Forstall such that the navigation system of TOSHIHIRO is further configured to utilize a weight value setting unit configured to assign a first weight value to a first route passing through the first entry or exit road based on a currently remaining distance from the driver's vehicle to the first entry or exit road and driver's personal pattern, compare the first weight value of the first route with a second weight value of a second route passing through a predetermined second entry or exit road, and a driver pattern detector configured to detect the driver's personal pattern through a driver pattern model modelled based on driver's driving record, wherein the driver pattern detector is configured to detect the driver's personal pattern based on an average entry distance, which is an average value of, as taught by Forstall (See paragraph [0037], [0057], [0066], [0071], [0084], [0087], [0093], [0094].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be directing a user to preferable routes based on user preferences, as taught by Forstall (See paragraph [0006].).
With respect to claim 14, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 5, which is commensurate in scope to claim 14, with claim 5 being drawn to a route guidance system and claim 14 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding Claim 7, TOSHIHIRO and Forstall teach The apparatus of claim 5, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. TOSHIHIRO teaches wherein the weight value setting unit is configured to, when the remaining distance to the first entry or exit road is larger than (See at least paragraph [0080], “In FIG. 1, an in-vehicle terminal device 101 includes a digital map database 110 as a map data storage unit in which a road network including information about entrances and exits of vehicles is stored in facility information on map data, and an in-vehicle terminal device 101. A sensor unit 111 having a GPS receiver, a gyro sensor, and the like for detecting the position and traveling direction of the vehicle and the like, and a position information calculating unit 112 for calculating the vehicle position information and the traveling direction based on the sensor information from the sensor unit 111, It has”, paragraph [0081], “Furthermore, the in-vehicle terminal device 101 has information on whether the vehicle is located on the road along the section including the facility, the location information of the vehicle, the information on the entrance / exit of the facility in the map data, the traffic congestion information ahead of the entrance / exit of the facility, A queue detection unit 113 is provided for detecting whether a queue is formed at the entrance of the facility based on the speed information of the vehicle at that time”, paragraph [0082], “Specifically, as shown in FIG. 3, the queue detection unit 113 of the present embodiment uses the speed information and the digital map database 110 for the vehicle position information and the traveling direction calculated by the position information calculation unit 112. While referring to the map data regarding the entrance of the facility, the traffic information at the destination of the entrance of the facility of the traffic information storage unit 117, and the detection result detected by the destination periphery information detection unit 115, the counterclockwise along the section including the facility As a result of the determination by the first determination unit 1131 and the first determination unit 1131 that determine whether or not the vehicle is traveling on the road traveling in the direction, it is determined whether or not the vehicle moves within a predetermined distance within a predetermined time. A queue for entering the entrance of the facility by adding the weighting factor to the evaluation value (that is, the train that is generated to enter the facility unlike ordinary traffic jams) A second determination unit 1132 that determines whether or not the current position is from the evaluation value, and determines position information at the time when measurement of a predetermined time is started as end position information of the queue; and And a matrix waiting time measuring unit 1133 that measures a required time (hereinafter referred to as a matrix waiting time) from the time when measurement is started until it reaches the entrance of the facility”, and paragraph [0083], “Here, as described above, the queue detection unit 113 determines the weighting factor based on the moving distance of the vehicle within a predetermined time. For example, the weight is determined depending on whether the moving distance within one minute is 50 m or less. The coefficient can be determined.”).
TOSHIHIRO does not explicitly disclose, however, Forstall, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (See at least paragraph [0066], “In some implementations, the route information can include historical data. For example, historical data can include information about the average time associated with navigating a route progression. The average time associated with each of the route progressions which are included in a route can combined to provide an estimated total time to navigate the route. The route may then be compared to similarly analyzed routes based on estimated total time to navigate the other routes, which can be used to recommend a route to a user.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of TOSHIHIRO with the teachings of Forstall such that the navigation system of TOSHIHIRO is further configured to utilize a weight value setting unit configured to assign a first weight value to a first route passing through the first entry or exit road based on a currently remaining distance from the driver's vehicle to the first entry or exit road and driver's personal pattern, compare the first weight value of the first route with a second weight value of a second route passing through a predetermined second entry or exit road, a driver pattern detector configured to detect the driver's personal pattern through a driver pattern model modelled based on driver's driving record, wherein the driver pattern detector is configured to detect the driver's personal pattern based on an average entry distance, which is an average value of, and the average entry distance of the driver, as taught by Forstall (See paragraph [0037], [0057], [0066], [0071], [0084], [0087], [0093], [0094].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be directing a user to preferable routes based on user preferences, as taught by Forstall (See paragraph [0006].).
With respect to claim 16, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 7, which is commensurate in scope to claim 16, with claim 7 being drawn to a route guidance system and claim 16 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding Claim 8, TOSHIHIRO and Forstall teach The apparatus of claim 7, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. TOSHIHIRO teaches wherein the weight value setting unit is configured to, when the remaining distance to the first entry or exit road is smaller than (See at least paragraph [0080], “In FIG. 1, an in-vehicle terminal device 101 includes a digital map database 110 as a map data storage unit in which a road network including information about entrances and exits of vehicles is stored in facility information on map data, and an in-vehicle terminal device 101. A sensor unit 111 having a GPS receiver, a gyro sensor, and the like for detecting the position and traveling direction of the vehicle and the like, and a position information calculating unit 112 for calculating the vehicle position information and the traveling direction based on the sensor information from the sensor unit 111, It has”, paragraph [0081], “Furthermore, the in-vehicle terminal device 101 has information on whether the vehicle is located on the road along the section including the facility, the location information of the vehicle, the information on the entrance / exit of the facility in the map data, the traffic congestion information ahead of the entrance / exit of the facility, A queue detection unit 113 is provided for detecting whether a queue is formed at the entrance of the facility based on the speed information of the vehicle at that time”, paragraph [0082], “Specifically, as shown in FIG. 3, the queue detection unit 113 of the present embodiment uses the speed information and the digital map database 110 for the vehicle position information and the traveling direction calculated by the position information calculation unit 112. While referring to the map data regarding the entrance of the facility, the traffic information at the destination of the entrance of the facility of the traffic information storage unit 117, and the detection result detected by the destination periphery information detection unit 115, the counterclockwise along the section including the facility As a result of the determination by the first determination unit 1131 and the first determination unit 1131 that determine whether or not the vehicle is traveling on the road traveling in the direction, it is determined whether or not the vehicle moves within a predetermined distance within a predetermined time. A queue for entering the entrance of the facility by adding the weighting factor to the evaluation value (that is, the train that is generated to enter the facility unlike ordinary traffic jams) A second determination unit 1132 that determines whether or not the current position is from the evaluation value, and determines position information at the time when measurement of a predetermined time is started as end position information of the queue; and And a matrix waiting time measuring unit 1133 that measures a required time (hereinafter referred to as a matrix waiting time) from the time when measurement is started until it reaches the entrance of the facility”, and paragraph [0083], “Here, as described above, the queue detection unit 113 determines the weighting factor based on the moving distance of the vehicle within a predetermined time. For example, the weight is determined depending on whether the moving distance within one minute is 50 m or less. The coefficient can be determined.”).
TOSHIHIRO does not explicitly disclose, however, Forstall, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (See at least paragraph [0066], “In some implementations, the route information can include historical data. For example, historical data can include information about the average time associated with navigating a route progression. The average time associated with each of the route progressions which are included in a route can combined to provide an estimated total time to navigate the route. The route may then be compared to similarly analyzed routes based on estimated total time to navigate the other routes, which can be used to recommend a route to a user.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of TOSHIHIRO with the teachings of Forstall such that the navigation system of TOSHIHIRO is further configured to utilize a weight value setting unit configured to assign a first weight value to a first route passing through the first entry or exit road based on a currently remaining distance from the driver's vehicle to the first entry or exit road and driver's personal pattern, compare the first weight value of the first route with a second weight value of a second route passing through a predetermined second entry or exit road, a driver pattern detector configured to detect the driver's personal pattern through a driver pattern model modelled based on driver's driving record, wherein the driver pattern detector is configured to detect the driver's personal pattern based on an average entry distance, which is an average value of, and the average entry distance of the driver, as taught by Forstall (See paragraph [0037], [0057], [0066], [0071], [0084], [0087], [0093], [0094].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be directing a user to preferable routes based on user preferences, as taught by Forstall (See paragraph [0006].).
With respect to claim 17, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 8, which is commensurate in scope to claim 17, with claim 8 being drawn to a route guidance system and claim 17 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding Claim 9, TOSHIHIRO and Forstall teach The apparatus of claim 8, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. TOSHIHIRO teaches wherein the weight value setting unit is configured to, even when the remaining distance to the first entry or exit road is smaller than (See at least paragraph [0083], “Here, as described above, the queue detection unit 113 determines the weighting factor based on the moving distance of the vehicle within a predetermined time. For example, the weight is determined depending on whether the moving distance within one minute is 50 m or less. The coefficient can be determined” and paragraph [0084], “For example, in traffic information guidelines, traffic congestion is defined as 10 km / h or less, and when waiting for a parking lot that is a queue when the destination is a parking lot, the traffic jam is slower than the traffic jam and slower than the walking speed. Therefore, assuming that the vehicle travels at a speed of 3 km or less when waiting for a parking lot, the vehicle moves 50 m or less in one minute. Therefore, in this way, if the movement is within 50 m per minute, it can be determined as a traffic jam.”).
TOSHIHIRO does not explicitly disclose, however, Forstall, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (See at least paragraph [0066], “In some implementations, the route information can include historical data. For example, historical data can include information about the average time associated with navigating a route progression. The average time associated with each of the route progressions which are included in a route can combined to provide an estimated total time to navigate the route. The route may then be compared to similarly analyzed routes based on estimated total time to navigate the other routes, which can be used to recommend a route to a user.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of TOSHIHIRO with the teachings of Forstall such that the navigation system of TOSHIHIRO is further configured to utilize a weight value setting unit configured to assign a first weight value to a first route passing through the first entry or exit road based on a currently remaining distance from the driver's vehicle to the first entry or exit road and driver's personal pattern, compare the first weight value of the first route with a second weight value of a second route passing through a predetermined second entry or exit road, a driver pattern detector configured to detect the driver's personal pattern through a driver pattern model modelled based on driver's driving record, wherein the driver pattern detector is configured to detect the driver's personal pattern based on an average entry distance, which is an average value of, and the average entry distance of the driver, as taught by Forstall (See paragraph [0037], [0057], [0066], [0071], [0084], [0087], [0093], [0094].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be directing a user to preferable routes based on user preferences, as taught by Forstall (See paragraph [0006].).
With respect to claim 18, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 9, which is commensurate in scope to claim 18, with claim 9 being drawn to a route guidance system and claim 18 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding Claim 10, TOSHIHIRO and Forstall teach The apparatus of claim 9, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. TOSHIHIRO teaches wherein the weight value setting unit is configured to determine the first weight value to be smaller than the second weight value when the remaining distance to the first entry or exit road is smaller than (See at least paragraph [0080], “In FIG. 1, an in-vehicle terminal device 101 includes a digital map database 110 as a map data storage unit in which a road network including information about entrances and exits of vehicles is stored in facility information on map data, and an in-vehicle terminal device 101. A sensor unit 111 having a GPS receiver, a gyro sensor, and the like for detecting the position and traveling direction of the vehicle and the like, and a position information calculating unit 112 for calculating the vehicle position information and the traveling direction based on the sensor information from the sensor unit 111, It has”, paragraph [0083], “Here, as described above, the queue detection unit 113 determines the weighting factor based on the moving distance of the vehicle within a predetermined time. For example, the weight is determined depending on whether the moving distance within one minute is 50 m or less. The coefficient can be determined”, and paragraph [0084], “For example, in traffic information guidelines, traffic congestion is defined as 10 km / h or less, and when waiting for a parking lot that is a queue when the destination is a parking lot, the traffic jam is slower than the traffic jam and slower than the walking speed. Therefore, assuming that the vehicle travels at a speed of 3 km or less when waiting for a parking lot, the vehicle moves 50 m or less in one minute. Therefore, in this way, if the movement is within 50 m per minute, it can be determined as a traffic jam.”).
TOSHIHIRO does not explicitly disclose, however, Forstall, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (See at least paragraph [0066], “In some implementations, the route information can include historical data. For example, historical data can include information about the average time associated with navigating a route progression. The average time associated with each of the route progressions which are included in a route can combined to provide an estimated total time to navigate the route. The route may then be compared to similarly analyzed routes based on estimated total time to navigate the other routes, which can be used to recommend a route to a user.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of TOSHIHIRO with the teachings of Forstall such that the navigation system of TOSHIHIRO is further configured to utilize a weight value setting unit configured to assign a first weight value to a first route passing through the first entry or exit road based on a currently remaining distance from the driver's vehicle to the first entry or exit road and driver's personal pattern, compare the first weight value of the first route with a second weight value of a second route passing through a predetermined second entry or exit road, a driver pattern detector configured to detect the driver's personal pattern through a driver pattern model modelled based on driver's driving record, wherein the driver pattern detector is configured to detect the driver's personal pattern based on an average entry distance, which is an average value of, the average entry distance of the driver, and a minimum enterable distance depending on the driver's personal pattern, as taught by Forstall (See paragraph [0037], [0057], [0066], [0071], [0084], [0087], [0093], [0094].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be directing a user to preferable routes based on user preferences, as taught by Forstall (See paragraph [0006].).
With respect to claim 19, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 10, which is commensurate in scope to claim 19, with claim 10 being drawn to a route guidance system and claim 19 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding Claim 11, TOSHIHIRO teaches A method for driver pattern-based route guidance, comprising providing a route including at least one entry or exit road to a destination through a navigation system (See at least paragraph [0001], “The present invention relates to a navigation system that sets an optimum route to a destination even when a queue is formed at the destination, and a terminal device, a center device, a queue detection method, a program that executes the navigation system, and a program therefor The present invention relates to a recording medium that records”, paragraph [0002], “In general, an in-vehicle navigation system is equipped with a route guidance function that enables a driver to travel from a current position of a vehicle toward a destination desired by a driver without making a mistake”, paragraph [0020], “Further, in the terminal device of the present invention, the queue detection unit determines whether or not the destination of the facility entrance of the road along the facility is congested, or the road on the extension line in the traveling direction of the branch or intersection is congested. The position information of the queue is detected based on the result of determining whether or not it is.”); determining whether a driver's vehicle has entered the waiting queue at a beginning of a waiting queue of a first entry or exit road (See at least paragraph [0020], “Further, in the terminal device of the present invention, the queue detection unit determines whether or not the destination of the facility entrance of the road along the facility is congested, or the road on the extension line in the traveling direction of the branch or intersection is congested. The position information of the queue is detected based on the result of determining whether or not it is.” The system determines whether a vehicle has entered a waiting queue by detecting congestion at a facility entrance or branch based on vehicle position and movement, thereby determining whether the vehicle is located within the queue region at the beginning of the queue.); (See at least paragraph [0020], “Further, in the terminal device of the present invention, the queue detection unit determines whether or not the destination of the facility entrance of the road along the facility is congested, or the road on the extension line in the traveling direction of the branch or intersection is congested. The position information of the queue is detected based on the result of determining whether or not it is.” The system determines whether a vehicle has entered a waiting queue by detecting congestion at a facility entrance or branch based on vehicle position and movement, thereby determining whether the vehicle is located within the queue region at the beginning of the queue.); and guiding a customized route to the driver (See at least paragraph [0153], “By the above, it is possible to detect the queue end position of the entrance / exit of the vehicle provided in the facility, and to perform a route search using the end position as the destination, which allows the driver to detour to the end of the queue. There is no need to search each time, and it is possible to save extra time. As a result, it also contributes to reducing traffic congestion in the surrounding area” and paragraph [0154], “In this embodiment, the center device and the in-vehicle terminal device constitute a navigation system. However, the in-vehicle terminal device may be a mobile terminal such as a personal computer, a mobile phone, or a PDA, and in short, is movable. Any terminal device may be used.”).
TOSHIHIRO does not explicitly disclose, however, Forstall, in the same field of endeavor, teaches assigning a first weight value to a first route passing through the first entry or exit road based on a currently remaining distance from the driver's vehicle to the first entry or exit road and driver's personal pattern, (See at least paragraph [0037], “FIG. 3 is a block diagram 300 of an example implementation of the mobile device 100 of FIG. 1. The mobile device 100 can include a memory interface 302, one or more data processors, image processors and/or central processing units 304, and a peripherals interface 306. The memory interface 302, the one or more processors 304 and/or the peripherals interface 306 can be separate components or can be integrated in one or more integrated circuits. The various components in the mobile device 100 can be coupled by one or more communication buses or signal lines”, paragraph [0071], “In further implementations, the route information can include map information received from map system 490. In these implementations, the map information can include distances associated with route progressions, traffic control devices associated with route progressions or portions of route progressions, speed limits associated with route progressions, etc. Preferences can be provided which use map information as comparison points between potential routes. For example, if the user indicates a preference for neighborhood driving versus highway driving, the map information can be used to reorder the potential routes based upon such a user preference. The map information can therefore be used to weight and compare routes based on the preferences. In other implementations, a graphical representation of disfavor can be applied to presented routes. For example, a color spectrum might be applied to the route presentation, whereby green is used to depict most favorable routes, while red can be used to depict most disfavored routes”, paragraph [0084], “In those implementations including a strength associated with a user preference, the analysis engine can use the strength to weight the route progressions and use the weighted route progressions to compare routes. For example, the user's desire to avoid traffic can be rated on a scale from 1 to 10, with a rating of "1" corresponding to the user being neutral to traffic, and a rating of "10" corresponding to a strong desire on the part of the user to avoid traffic. In examples where the user indicates a strong desire to avoid traffic, the analysis engine can weight the route progressions with traffic more negatively than those with light traffic, thereby making it more likely that an analysis engine (e.g., analysis engine 430) will recommend routes having lighter traffic. However, in the implementations that include a strength associated with the user preferences, the strengths of other preferences could outweigh other preferences depending on a strength associated with the other preferences.”); and guiding a customized route to the driver by comparing the first weight value of the first route with a second weight value of a second route passing through a predetermined second entry or exit road (See at least paragraph [0087], “Table 1 below in conjunction with FIG. 5B illustrates an example selection of a route progressions for a portion of the route based on such scores and weights. As shown in FIG. 5B, a step by step progressive algorithm can be used to identify a route based on preferences. For example, the first route progression can be chosen by comparing route progressions A1, A2 and A3. The scores can be weighted by multiplying the scores with the preference strengths, respectively, and summing the weightings to provide a cumulative weighted score for each of route progressions A1, A2 and A3. Based on Table 1, the user has indicated a strength of 10 for scenery preference and a strength of 8 for city preferences. Based on the weighted score derived from the scenery score and associated preference strength as well as the city score and associated preference strength, route progression A2 would be selected. Additional route progressions beginning at the destination of A2 could then be identified and evaluated”, paragraph [0093], “At stage 630, the route is analyzed based on user preferences. The route can be analyzed, for example, using an analysis engine (e.g., analysis engine 430 of FIG. 4). The analysis can receive user preferences and use the preferences to weight the route progressions included in the identified routes. The weighted route progressions can be used to rearrange the identified routes based on the user preferences. In some implementations, the analysis can retrieve route information from several different sources (e.g., history data store 460, traffic information system 480, map system 490, of FIG. 4) to use in conjunction with the preference information”, and paragraph [0094], “At stage 630, the route is analyzed based on user preferences. The route can be analyzed, for example, using an analysis engine (e.g., analysis engine 430 of FIG. 4). The analysis can receive user preferences and use the preferences to weight the route progressions included in the identified routes. The weighted route progressions can be used to rearrange the identified routes based on the user preferences. In some implementations, the analysis can retrieve route information from several different sources (e.g., history data store 460, traffic information system 480, map system 490, of FIG. 4) to use in conjunction with the preference information.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of TOSHIHIRO with the teachings of Forstall such that the navigation system of TOSHIHIRO is further configured to utilize a weight value setting unit configured to assign a first weight value to a first route passing through the first entry or exit road based on a currently remaining distance from the driver's vehicle to the first entry or exit road and driver's personal pattern and guide a customized route to the driver by comparing the first weight value of the first route with a second weight value of a second route passing through a predetermined second entry or exit road, as taught by Forstall (See paragraph [0037], [0071], [0084], [0087], [0093], [0094].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be directing a user to preferable routes based on user preferences, as taught by Forstall (See paragraph [0006].).
Claim(s) 6, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOSHIHIRO (JP 2006252533 A) in view of Forstall (US 20090005965 A1) and Regensburger (US 20040143381 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, TOSHIHIRO and Forstall teach The apparatus of claim 5, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. TOSHIHIRO teaches (See at least paragraph [0081], “Furthermore, the in-vehicle terminal device 101 has information on whether the vehicle is located on the road along the section including the facility, the location information of the vehicle, the information on the entrance / exit of the facility in the map data, the traffic congestion information ahead of the entrance / exit of the facility, A queue detection unit 113 is provided for detecting whether a queue is formed at the entrance of the facility based on the speed information of the vehicle at that time” and paragraph [0082], “Specifically, as shown in FIG. 3, the queue detection unit 113 of the present embodiment uses the speed information and the digital map database 110 for the vehicle position information and the traveling direction calculated by the position information calculation unit 112. While referring to the map data regarding the entrance of the facility, the traffic information at the destination of the entrance of the facility of the traffic information storage unit 117, and the detection result detected by the destination periphery information detection unit 115, the counterclockwise along the section including the facility As a result of the determination by the first determination unit 1131 and the first determination unit 1131 that determine whether or not the vehicle is traveling on the road traveling in the direction, it is determined whether or not the vehicle moves within a predetermined distance within a predetermined time. A queue for entering the entrance of the facility by adding the weighting factor to the evaluation value (that is, the train that is generated to enter the facility unlike ordinary traffic jams) A second determination unit 1132 that determines whether or not the current position is from the evaluation value, and determines position information at the time when measurement of a predetermined time is started as end position information of the queue; and And a matrix waiting time measuring unit 1133 that measures a required time (hereinafter referred to as a matrix waiting time) from the time when measurement is started until it reaches the entrance of the facility.”).
TOSHIHIRO does not explicitly disclose, however, Forstall, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the driver pattern detector is configured to detect the driver's personal pattern based on an average entry timing, which is an average value (See at least paragraph [0057], “In some implementations, the destination engine 410 can use history information to recognize patterns, and can use preference information to determine which of a plurality of destinations the user intends (e.g., a user might indicate a preference for destination information derived from calendar information over destination information derived from date information). In some implementations, the destination engine 410 can automatically recognize patterns without user input. In other implementations, the destination engine 410 can automatically recognize navigation patterns and allow users to confirm or reject a destination through a user interface”, paragraph [0066], “In some implementations, the route information can include historical data. For example, historical data can include information about the average time associated with navigating a route progression. The average time associated with each of the route progressions which are included in a route can combined to provide an estimated total time to navigate the route. The route may then be compared to similarly analyzed routes based on estimated total time to navigate the other routes, which can be used to recommend a route to a user”, and paragraph [0076], “Road preferences 510 can include a user's preferences as to certain roads. In some implementations, the user can enter preferred roads using the user interface 450. In other implementations, the preferences engine 376 can derive preferred roads based on user history. For example, if a road appears in the user history many times, the user can be inferred to prefer that road. In some implementations, the user can indicate a preference for familiar roads, thereby making it more likely that an analysis engine (e.g., analysis engine 430) will recommend routes having a higher number route progressions found in a history data store (e.g., history store 460). In further implementations, the user can include a strength associated with the road preferences 510. In some implementations, the user can use the road preferences to specify a preference to use a different route than the routes that were previously used. For example, a user might want to take a different route than the route he/she usually takes to a given destination and can set the road preferences to take such a desire into account.”).
TOSHIHIRO and Forstall do not explicitly disclose, however, Regensburger, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (See at least paragraph [0035], “The analyzer unit 15 can adapt the point in time for turning the turn indicator 2, 3 on or off to the driving habits of the driver on the basis of conventional statistical methods such as those using neural networks”, paragraph [0048], “To adapt the turning of the turn indicator 2, 3 on or off to the driving style of the particular driver, the manual turning of the turn indicator 2, 3 on or off is detected. This refers to the determination of the point in time when the driver turns on the turn indicator 2, 3 before changing lanes or changing direction of travel or the time when he turns it off after having changed lanes or direction of travel”, and paragraph [0050], “As a function of the data given above, the point in time for turning the turn indicator 2, 3 on or off, which is determined by the method steps according to this invention, is adapted to the driving style of the driver. The adaptation to the driving style of the driver is limited by the fact that defined requirements must also be met when automatically turning the turn indicator 2, 3 on or off.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of TOSHIHIRO with the teachings of Forstall and Regensburger such that the navigation system of TOSHIHIRO is further configured to utilize a weight value setting unit configured to assign a first weight value to a first route passing through the first entry or exit road based on a currently remaining distance from the driver's vehicle to the first entry or exit road and driver's personal pattern, compare the first weight value of the first route with a second weight value of a second route passing through a predetermined second entry or exit road, a driver pattern detector configured to detect the driver's personal pattern through a driver pattern model modelled based on driver's driving record, wherein the driver pattern detector is configured to detect the driver's personal pattern based on an average entry distance, which is an average value of, and wherein the driver pattern detector is configured to detect the driver's personal pattern based on an average entry timing, which is an average value, as taught by Forstall (See paragraph [0037], [0057], [0066], [0071], [0076], [0084], [0087], [0093], [0094].), and to utilize time taken from a time point of turning on a turn signal to entry, as taught by Regensburger (See paragraph [0035], [0048], [0050].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be directing a user to preferable routes based on user preferences, as taught by Forstall (See paragraph [0006].). The motivation for doing so would be increasing traffic safety, as taught by Regensburger (See paragraph [0011].).
With respect to claim 15, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 6, which is commensurate in scope to claim 15, with claim 6 being drawn to a route guidance system and claim 15 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEWEL ASHLEY KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5542. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JEWEL A KUNTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666