DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Response to Election of Species filed on 03/03/2025.
Claims 1-32 received on 05/06/2024 are considered in this Office Action.
Claims 16-24, 27-29 and 31-32 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-15, 25-26 and 30 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/06/2024, 11/20/2024 and 02/18/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (1-15, 25-26 and 30), in the reply filed on 03/03/2026 are acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The Examiner recommends adding the element of destination into the title.
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) are:
Claims 1-6, 8-11: guidance provision determination unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claims 1-12: notification control unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claims 14-15: continuation determination unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claim 25: a setting state determination unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claims 25-26: a speed limitation unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding guidance provision determination unit, notification control unit, continuation determination unit, a setting state determination unit and speed limitation unit, they are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of processor or electronic control unit (ECU) and equivalents thereof as supported by FIG. 2 and a portion of paragraphs of the specification reproduced below:
[0052] The HCU 10 is configured based on a computer including a processor, a volatile memory, a nonvolatile memory.
[0053] HCU 10 includes, as functional blocks, a notification control unit 100, an information acquisition unit 101, a level determination unit 102, a guidance provision determination unit 103, a repetition determination unit 104, and a timing determination unit 105.
[0110] the HCU 10c includes, as functional blocks, a notification control unit 100c, the information acquisition unit 101, the level determination unit 102, a setting state determination unit 106
[0179] as shown in FIG. 23, the HCU 10h includes, as functional blocks, a notification control unit 100h, an information acquisition unit 101h, the level determination unit 102, the guidance provision determination unit 103, the repetition determination unit 104, a timing determination unit 105h, and a continuation determination unit
[0216] As shown in FIG. 29, the automated driving ECU 17k includes the travel environment recognition unit 171, a behavior determination unit 172k, the control implementation unit 173, and the HCU communication unit 174j as functional blocks. The automated driving ECU 17k includes the behavior determination unit 172k in place of the behavior determination unit 172.
[0218]The behavior determination unit 172k includes the setting state determination unit 1721, the searcher determination unit 1722, the LC restriction unit 1723, and a speed limitation unit 1725
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 4 and 14-15 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 4 recites the limitation " the information of a predetermined point". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " the steering operation" and “the driver”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 14 and fails to cure the deficiencies thereof, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
Additional claim limitation of “prompting notification, which is at least either confirmation notification prompting confirmation related to setting of a route or situation notification notifying of a traveling situation, at a predetermined timing” applies or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, thus integrating the judicial exception into a practical application as supported by para. [0011] of the specification reproduced below:
[0011] When confirmation notification prompting confirmation related to setting of a route or situation notification notifying of a traveling situation is made, the notification provides a trigger for a driver to confirm whether driving different from the driver’s intention is not being performed. Therefore, when a driver can perceive that the driver is performing driving different from the driver’s intention by causing prompting notification, the driver can change the driving to a driving along a route corresponding to the driver’s intention. As a result, degradation in convenience can be suppressed during automated driving free from a monitoring obligation
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISAMASA (JP 2019138643 A), in view of Suzuki (JP6628441B2).
ISAMASA is cited in the IDS received on 11/20/2024.
The Espacenet English translation of ISAMASA and Suzuki referenced by the Examiner is attached.
Regarding claim 1, ISAMASA teaches a vehicular control device (FIG. 1; para. [0010]: “configuration of an automatic driving start support system mounted on a vehicle. In the present embodiment, the automatic driving start support system is realized by the navigation system 10”) used in a vehicle with which automated driving (FIG. 1; para. [0014]-[0015]: “The automatic driving control unit 45 is an ECU that controls the behavior of the vehicle by controlling devices such as a steering unit and a vehicle speed control unit (not shown) based on outputs of various sensors including an image acquisition unit (not shown) mounted on the vehicle. is there […] When the automatic driving function is on, the automatic driving control unit 45 can perform automatic driving along the route.”), is performed, the vehicular control device (FIG. 1; para. [0010]: “The navigation system 10 includes a control unit 20 including a CPU, a RAM, a ROM, and the like, and a recording medium 30, and the control unit 20 can execute a program stored in the recording medium 30 and the ROM”) comprising:
a guidance provision determination unit that is configured to determine whether route guidance to a destination set by an occupant of the vehicle is under way (para. [0028]: “When the automatic driving start support process is started, the control unit 20 determines whether or not the destination has been set (step S100).”; para. [0014]: “In the present embodiment, when the automatic driving function is on, the automatic driving control unit 45 is directed to the temporary destination set based on the travel history or the destination set by the occupant destination setting operation.”; para. [0024]: “The automatic driving start control unit 21c is a program module that causes the control unit 20 to realize a function of starting automatic driving of a vehicle toward a temporary destination”, wherein destination set or temporary destination indicates determine whether route guidance to a destination set by an occupant of the vehicle is under way); and
a notification control unit that is configured to, when the guidance provision determination unit determines that the route guidance is not under way during the automated driving without a monitoring obligation of the vehicle, cause prompting notification, which is at least either confirmation notification prompting confirmation related to setting of a route or situation notification notifying of a traveling situation, at a predetermined timing (para. [0025]: “when starting the automatic driving of the vehicle toward the temporary destination, the control unit 20 indicates that the user I / F unit 44 starts the automatic driving toward the point that is the temporary destination. The driver is notified through the speaker. In addition, the control unit 20 prompts the driver to set the original destination via the display unit and the speaker of the user I / F unit 44. Specifically, for example, the control unit 20 first displays on the display unit of the user I / F unit 44 a screen for selecting whether or not to set a temporary destination as the destination, as shown in a screen G100 in FIG. 2B. indicate. When the occupant selects “Yes”, the control unit 20 sets the temporary destination as the destination. When the occupant selects “No”, the control unit 20 displays a screen G101 shown in FIG. 2B. […] The processing for prompting the setting of the original destination as described above is continuously or intermittently performed until the destination is set by the operation of the occupant even after the automatic driving to the temporary destination is started”), but fails to specifically teach automated driving without a monitoring obligation, which is automated driving during which a surround monitoring obligation is not imposed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches automated driving without a monitoring obligation, which is automated driving during which a surround monitoring obligation is not imposed (para. [0050]: “By the way, when the driver or the passenger wants to fall asleep or behave freely, the autonomous driving of the car 1 is completely left to the autonomous driving by the autonomous driving of the car 1 for the execution of the autonomous driving navigation function unit 300 in the autonomous driving mode.”, wherein asleep or behave freely indicates automated driving without a monitoring obligation) and
a notification control unit that is configured to, when the guidance provision determination unit determines that the route guidance is not under way during the automated driving without a monitoring obligation of the vehicle, cause prompting notification, which is at least either confirmation notification prompting confirmation related to setting of a route or situation notification notifying of a traveling situation, at a predetermined timing (para. [0048]: “the setting reception unit 301 of the automatic driving navigation function unit 300 determines whether or not the destination has already been set, and if the destination has not been set, the destination setting input is operated. To the driver or the passenger and memorize the destination entered and set. Of course, the destination setting input may be made selectable, and the driver or the passenger may be prompted to make a selection”; para. [0050]: “By the way, when the driver or the passenger wants to fall asleep or behave freely, the autonomous driving of the car 1 is completely left to the autonomous driving by the autonomous driving of the car 1 for the execution of the autonomous driving navigation function unit 300 in the autonomous driving mode. No route guidance or map display is required. Further, depending on the driver or the rider, there may be a case where the user wants to know the current position of the own vehicle on a map or to know what kind of driving is performed when executing the automatic driving navigation function unit 300 in the automatic driving mode. . In addition, the driver or the passenger does not need the voice of the route guidance, but may want to know peripheral information such as sightseeing information and restaurant information of the specific point when the specific point is reached”; para. [0058]: “In this embodiment, the voice guidance unit 305 performs a voice guidance process for notifying a driver or a passenger of what action the vehicle will take at an intersection or a junction.”).
ISAMASA is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of requesting a destination from the driver. Suzuki is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of notification during autonomous driving mode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ISAMASA to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki and provide an autonomous driving mode which allows the driver to fall asleep or behave freely (Suzuki, para. [0050]) and provide information regarding a specific point. Doing so would enhance user experience and further expand the support system to various levels of autonomous driving.
Regarding claim 2, ISAMASA in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicular control device according to claim 1. ISAMA further teaches wherein when the guidance provision determination unit determines that the route guidance is not under way during the automated driving without a monitoring obligation of the vehicle, the notification control unit causes the prompting notification on time timing, as the predetermined timing, which correspond to time when an elapsed time from start of the automated driving without a monitoring obligation reaches a specified time (para. [0025]: “when starting the automatic driving of the vehicle toward the temporary destination, the control unit 20 indicates that the user I / F unit 44 starts the automatic driving toward the point that is the temporary destination. The driver is notified through the speaker. In addition, the control unit 20 prompts the driver to set the original destination via the display unit and the speaker of the user I / F unit 44. […] The processing for prompting the setting of the original destination as described above is continuously or intermittently performed until the destination is set by the operation of the occupant even after the automatic driving to the temporary destination is started”; para. [0027]: “Therefore, it is possible to shorten the time from the boarding to the departure as compared with the configuration in which traveling by the automatic driving is not started until the occupant finishes setting the destination”, wherein notification occurs after the autonomous driving is started, thus indicating prompting notification on time timing, as the predetermined timing, which correspond to time when an elapsed time from start of the automated driving without a monitoring obligation reaches a specified time).
Regarding claim 4, ISAMASA in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicular control device according to claim 1. ISAMASA in view of Suzuki further teaches wherein when the guidance provision determination unit determines that the route guidance is not under way during the automated driving without a monitoring obligation of the vehicle (ISAMASA para. [0014]: “In the present embodiment, when the automatic driving function is on, the automatic driving control unit 45 is directed to the temporary destination set based on the travel history or the destination set by the occupant destination setting operation.”), the notification control unit causes notification of the information of a predetermined point through which the vehicle is planned to pass as the situation notification at predetermined timing intervals from start of the automated driving without a monitoring obligation as the predetermined timing (Suzuki para. [0058]: “In this embodiment, the voice guidance unit 305 performs a voice guidance process for notifying a driver or a passenger of what action the vehicle will take at an intersection or a junction. Note that the voice guidance unit 305 may provide the same voice guidance as the voice guidance unit 2032 of the manual driving navigation function unit 200. In that case, the voice guidance unit 2032 of the route guidance unit 203 of the manual driving navigation function unit 200 can be used as the voice guidance unit 305 of the automatic driving navigation function unit 300”).
Regarding claim 5, ISAMASA in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicular control device according to claim 1. Suzuki further teaches wherein when the guidance provision determination unit determines that the route guidance is not under way during the automated driving without a monitoring obligation of the vehicle (ISAMASA para. [0014]: “In the present embodiment, when the automatic driving function is on, the automatic driving control unit 45 is directed to the temporary destination set based on the travel history or the destination set by the occupant destination setting operation.”), the notification control unit causes the prompting notification on place timing, which corresponds to time when the vehicle arrives at a predetermined place that is a predetermined area or spot, as the predetermined timing (Suzuki para. [0058]: “In this embodiment, the voice guidance unit 305 performs a voice guidance process for notifying a driver or a passenger of what action the vehicle will take at an intersection or a junction. Note that the voice guidance unit 305 may provide the same voice guidance as the voice guidance unit 2032 of the manual driving navigation function unit 200. In that case, the voice guidance unit 2032 of the route guidance unit 203 of the manual driving navigation function unit 200 can be used as the voice guidance unit 305 of the automatic driving navigation function unit 300”).
Regarding claim 7, ISAMASA in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicular control device according to claim 1. ISAMA further teaches wherein when the prompting notification is caused, the notification control unit sequentially causes a plurality of types of the prompting notification including at least two types of notification from among setting prompting notification prompting setting of a destination as the confirmation notification, setting state notification notifying of a present route setting state as the confirmation notification, and the situation notification (FIG. 2; para. [0025]: “for example, the control unit 20 first displays on the display unit of the user I / F unit 44 a screen for selecting whether or not to set a temporary destination as the destination, as shown in a screen G100 in FIG. 2B. indicate. When the occupant selects “Yes”, the control unit 20 sets the temporary destination as the destination. When the occupant selects “No”, the control unit 20 displays a screen G101 shown in FIG. 2B. From the screen G101, for example, it is possible to transition to each screen in order to input a destination from a destination history, facility name, genre, registration point, telephone number, map, or the like. When an occupant performs an operation of inputting a destination in a state where each screen after the transition is displayed on the display unit, the control unit 20 sets the input destination as the destination.”, wherein temporary destination indicates present route setting state, and input a destination from a destination history indicates prompting setting of a destination as the confirmation notification).
Regarding claim 9, ISAMASA in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicular control device according to claim 1. ISAMASA and Suzuki further teaches wherein when the guidance provision determination unit determines that the route guidance is not under way during the automated driving without a monitoring obligation of the vehicle (ISAMASA para. [0025]: “when starting the automatic driving of the vehicle toward the temporary destination”),
the notification control unit is capable of causing, as the prompting notification, at least one of setting prompting notification prompting setting of a destination as the confirmation notification, setting state notification notifying of a present route setting state as the confirmation notification, and the situation notification on at least two types of timing, as the predetermined timing, from among time timing, which corresponds to time when an elapsed time from start of the automated driving without a monitoring obligation reaches a specified time, mileage timing, which corresponds to a mileage of the vehicle from start of the automated driving without a monitoring obligation reaches a specified distance, and place timing, which corresponds to time when the vehicle arrives at a predetermined place that is a predetermined area or spot, and varies a type or a combination of types of the prompting notification according to on which type of the timing the prompting notification is caused (ISAMASA para. [0025]: “the control unit 20 indicates that the user I / F unit 44 starts the automatic driving toward the point that is the temporary destination. The driver is notified through the speaker. In addition, the control unit 20 prompts the driver to set the original destination via the display unit and the speaker of the user I / F unit 44. […] The processing for prompting the setting of the original destination as described above is continuously or intermittently performed until the destination is set by the operation of the occupant even after the automatic driving to the temporary destination is started”; para. [0027]: “Therefore, it is possible to shorten the time from the boarding to the departure as compared with the configuration in which traveling by the automatic driving is not started until the occupant finishes setting the destination”; Suzuki para. [0050]: “peripheral information such as sightseeing information and restaurant information of the specific point when the specific point is reached”; Suzuki para. [0058]: “In this embodiment, the voice guidance unit 305 performs a voice guidance process for notifying a driver or a passenger of what action the vehicle will take at an intersection or a junction.”, wherein ISAMASA teaches prompting notification regarding destination based on a time timing, and Suzuki teaches situation notification based on place timing, thus the combination teaches notification on at least two types of timing and varies a type or a combination of types of the prompting notification according to on which type of the timing the prompting notification is caused).
Regarding claim 30, it recites a vehicular control method comprising of claim limitations similar to those performed by the vehicular control device according to claim 1, and thus are rejected on the same basis.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISAMASA, in view of Suzuki, and further in view of Sheha (US 20120254804 A1).
Regarding claim 3, ISAMASA in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicular control device according to claim 1 ISAMASA further teaches wherein when the guidance provision determination unit determines that the route guidance is not under way during the automated driving without a monitoring obligation of the vehicle, the notification control unit causes the prompting notification on (para. [0025]: “when starting the automatic driving of the vehicle toward the temporary destination, the control unit 20 indicates that the user I / F unit 44 starts the automatic driving toward the point that is the temporary destination. The driver is notified through the speaker. In addition, the control unit 20 prompts the driver to set the original destination via the display unit and the speaker of the user I / F unit 44. […] The processing for prompting the setting of the original destination as described above is continuously or intermittently performed until the destination is set by the operation of the occupant even after the automatic driving to the temporary destination is started”; para. [0027]: “Therefore, it is possible to shorten the time from the boarding to the departure as compared with the configuration in which traveling by the automatic driving is not started until the occupant finishes setting the destination”, wherein notification occurs after the autonomous driving is started, thus indicating prompting notification on a predetermined timing), but fails to specifically teach notification on mileage timing, as the predetermined timing, which corresponds to time when a mileage of the vehicle from start of the automated driving without a monitoring obligation reaches a specified distance
However, Sheha teaches notification on mileage timing, as the predetermined timing, which corresponds to time when a mileage of the vehicle from start of the automated driving without a monitoring obligation reaches a specified distance (para. [0316]: “The personal wireless navigation system uses a rule to re-announce a past traffic alert announcement at least one more time. This re-announcement rule is based on several conditions, including: the distance traveled from the point when the first announcement was played; the distance to the location of traffic alert; the time that has elapsed since the first announcement was played; and/or a logical combination of above”).
Sheha is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of notification timing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the notification timing of ISAMASA in view of Suzuki with the distance traveled of Sheha, notifying when traveled distance satisfies a condition, because they both perform the function of notifying at a predetermined timing and one could have substituted the mechanisms and the result of the substitution would have been predictable in notifying based on a distance traveled and time that has elapsed, as they are related by speed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISAMASA, in view of Suzuki, and further in view of ISHIGOOKA (US 20230267837 A1).
Regarding claim 6, ISAMASA in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicular control device according to claim 5 further comprising: a speed control instruction unit that is configured to, (ISAMASA para. [0014]: “The automatic driving control unit 45 is an ECU that controls the behavior of the vehicle by controlling devices such as a steering unit and a vehicle speed control unit (not shown) based on outputs of various sensors including an image acquisition unit (not shown) mounted on the vehicle”, wherein decreasing of speed from controlling the behavior of the vehicle indicates suppress a speed of the vehicle to a specified value or below),
wherein when the guidance provision determination unit determines that the route guidance is not under way during the automated driving without a monitoring obligation of the vehicle (ISAMASA para. [0014]: “In the present embodiment, when the automatic driving function is on, the automatic driving control unit 45 is directed to the temporary destination set based on the travel history or the destination set by the occupant destination setting operation.”), the notification control unit causes the situation notification notifying of a traveling situation on place timing, which corresponds to time when the vehicle arrives at the predetermined place (Suzuki para. [0058]: “In this embodiment, the voice guidance unit 305 performs a voice guidance process for notifying a driver or a passenger of what action the vehicle will take at an intersection or a junction.”), but fails to specifically teach when a distance between the vehicle and the predetermined place become equal to a threshold value or below, suppress a speed of the vehicle to a specified value or below.
However, ISHIGOOKA teaches when a distance between the vehicle and the predetermined place become equal to a threshold value or below, suppress a speed of the vehicle to a specified value or below (para. [0089]: “Therefore, when the autonomous mobile body 13 in FIG. 8A detects the intersection with a blind spot (field F) within the prescribed effective range L, the speed control unit 13c determines a deceleration degree and generates a deceleration command to be output to the arbitration unit 13d such that that the autonomous mobile body 13 can decelerate to a speed at which an emergency stop can be performed with the mounted sensor within a range of the distance D from a current position to the field F. Accordingly, the autonomous mobile body 13 enters the intersection at a low speed that allows emergency restraint”).
ISHIGOOKA is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem driving autonomous vehicles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of ISAMASA in view of Suzuki and incorporate the deceleration of ISHIGOOKA in predetermined points. Doing so will enhance safety as it would allow for the vehicle to perform emergency maneuvers in predetermined places, such as an intersection or junction.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISAMASA, in view of Suzuki, and further in view of Tanahashi (US20180224852A1).
Regarding claim 8, ISAMASA in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicular control device according to claim 1. ISAMASA in view of Suzuki further teaches wherein the notification control unit causes setting prompting notification prompting setting of a destination as the prompting notification (para. [0025]: “when starting the automatic driving of the vehicle toward the temporary destination, the control unit 20 indicates that the user I / F unit 44 starts the automatic driving toward the point that is the temporary destination. The driver is notified through the speaker. In addition, the control unit 20 prompts the driver to set the original destination via the display unit and the speaker of the user I / F unit 44. […] The processing for prompting the setting of the original destination as described above is continuously or intermittently performed until the destination is set by the operation of the occupant even after the automatic driving to the temporary destination is started”), and when the guidance provision determination unit determines that the route guidance is not under way during the automated driving without a monitoring obligation of the vehicle, the notification control unit causes at least either setting state notification notifying of a present route setting state or a situation notification notifying of a traveling situation (para. [0058]: “In this embodiment, the voice guidance unit 305 performs a voice guidance process for notifying a driver or a passenger of what action the vehicle will take at an intersection or a junction. Note that the voice guidance unit 305 may provide the same voice guidance as the voice guidance unit 2032 of the manual driving navigation function unit 200. In that case, the voice guidance unit 2032 of the route guidance unit 203 of the manual driving navigation function unit 200 can be used as the voice guidance unit 305 of the automatic driving navigation function unit 300”), and
the notification control unit causes the setting prompting notification at the predetermined timing (para. [0025]: “when starting the automatic driving of the vehicle toward the temporary destination, the control unit 20 indicates that the user I / F unit 44 starts the automatic driving toward the point that is the temporary destination. The driver is notified through the speaker. In addition, the control unit 20 prompts the driver to set the original destination via the display unit and the speaker of the user I / F unit 44. […] The processing for prompting the setting of the original destination as described above is continuously or intermittently performed until the destination is set by the operation of the occupant even after the automatic driving to the temporary destination is started”), but fails to specifically teach the notification control unit causes at least either setting state notification notifying of a present route setting state or a situation notification notifying of a traveling situation from before the predetermined timing.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tanahashi teaches the notification control unit causes at least either setting state notification notifying of a present route setting state or a situation notification notifying of a traveling situation from before the predetermined timing (FIG. 6; FIG. 9; para. [0100]: “At S105, […] when the auto-drive processor F5 performs an automatic travel start of the subject vehicle, the auto-drive processor F5 notifies the driver's seat occupant of the auto-drive of the subject vehicle, under control of the HMI system 80. By providing such notification, the driver's seat occupant is substantially prevented from being surprised, embarrassed, or frustrated in terms of the start of the auto-drive function or when to start the auto-drive function for the subject vehicle.”; para. [0119]: “At S206, the auto-drive processor F5 determines whether a preset amount of time has lapsed after starting the auto-drive in a no-destination-set state. The amount of time for the determination of the process at S206 may be arbitrarily determined by design. […] When the time lapsed after starting the auto-drive is equal to or greater than a preset value, an affirmative determination is performed at S206, and the process proceeds to S208.”; para. [0121]: “At S208, the auto-drive processor F5 performs a route confirmation process. The route confirmation process is an inquiry process for asking the driver's seat occupant whether the current travel direction is a travel direction desired by the driver's seat occupant”).
Tanahashi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of requesting a destination from the driver. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ISAMASA in view of Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Tanahashi and provide a notification of the current route prior to prompting a confirmation of a destination. Doing so would prevent the driver from being surprised, embarrassed, or frustrated in terms of the start of the auto-drive function (Tanahashi, para. [0100]). Furthermore, the combination of ISAMASA in view of Suzuki and further in view of Tanahashi will result in voice guidance process for notifying a driver or a passenger of what action the vehicle will take throughout the autonomous driving mode, thus a situation notification notifying of a traveling situation from before the predetermined timing.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISAMASA, in view of Suzuki, and further in view of Nakahira (JP2001050769A).
Nakahira is cited in the IDS received on 05/06/2024.
The Espacenet English Translation of Nakahira referenced by the Examiner is attached.
Regarding claim 10, ISAMASA in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicular control device according to claim 1. ISAMA teaches a repetition determination unit that is configured to determine whether the vehicle is traveling along a route along which the vehicle has repetitively traveled a predetermined number of times or more in past, wherein even in a case where the guidance provision determination unit determines that the route guidance is not under way during the automated driving without a monitoring obligation of the vehicle, when the repetition determination unit determines that the vehicle is traveling along a route along which the vehicle has repetitively traveled in the past (para. [0048]: “In the above embodiment, as an example in which a temporary destination is set based on a travel history with a relatively high travel frequency, a destination in a travel pattern with the highest travel frequency (number of travels) is set as the temporary destination. Explained what to do. As another embodiment, a configuration may be adopted in which points on each route in the upper predetermined number of travel patterns having a higher travel frequency (the number of travels) than others are set as temporary destinations in the order of the most frequent travel frequencies.”), but fails to specifically teach the notification control unit prevents the prompting notification from being caused at the predetermined timing.
However, Nakahira teaches automatically selecting a destination based on a when the repetition determination unit determines that the vehicle is traveling along a route along which the vehicle has repetitively traveled in the past (para. [0003]: “Furthermore, in recent years, navigation devices generally not only display the current position of the running vehicle, but also automatically set the destination based on the user's past driving pattern data to obtain the vehicle's travel route”; para. [0011]: “A destination with a high frequency is automatically selected, a travel route to the destination is acquired by route search, and route guidance is provided. Therefore, the user can automatically receive route guidance to the destination without operating a keyboard or a touch panel for setting the destination before starting traveling”; para. [0014]-[0015]: “The route guidance means is configured not to perform the route guidance when the history data of the traveling history satisfies a predetermined condition […] Preferably, in the navigation device of the present invention, the predetermined condition is that the history data indicating the same section among the history data of the traveling history which matches the situation detected by the situation detecting means is preset. It is whether or not the number of times is equal to or more than a predetermined number.”), the notification control unit prevents the prompting notification from being caused at the predetermined timing (para. [0014]: “The route guidance means is configured not to perform the route guidance when the history data of the traveling history satisfies a predetermined condition).
Nakahira is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to notification based on driver history. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the notification timing of ISAMASA in view of Suzuki with automatic selection of destination based on history of Nakahira. Doing so will enhance user experience by automatically selecting the destination without a keyboard or a touch panel for setting the destination before starting traveling (Nakahira, para. [0011]) and thus remove unnecessary notification prompting a destination.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISAMASA, in view of Suzuki, and further in view of Smid (US20180339714A1), and further in view of Alasry (US9925872B1).
Regarding claim 11, ISAMASA in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicular control device according to claim 1. ISAMASA and Suzuki further teaches wherein the vehicular control device can be used in a vehicle in which of the automated driving without a monitoring obligation, sleep-permitted automated driving during which a driver of the vehicle is permitted to sleep (Suzuki para. [0050]: “By the way, when the driver or the passenger wants to fall asleep or behave freely, the autonomous driving of the car 1 is completely left to the autonomous driving by the autonomous driving of the car 1”)
wherein when the guidance provision determination unit determines that the route guidance is not under way during the automated driving without a monitoring obligation of the vehicle, the notification control unit (ISAMASA para. [0025]: “when starting the automatic driving of the vehicle toward the temporary destination, the control unit 20 indicates that the user I / F unit 44 starts the automatic driving toward the point that is the temporary destination. […] The processing for prompting the setting of the original destination as described above is continuously or intermittently performed until the destination is set by the operation of the occupant even after the automatic driving to the temporary destination is started”), but fails to specifically teach sleep-prohibited automated driving during which a driver of the vehicle is not permitted to sleep can be switched therebetween and be performed and varies a frequency of notification according to whether the vehicle is during the sleep-permitted automated driving or during the sleep-prohibited automated driving.
However, Smid teaches sleep-permitted automated driving during which a driver of the vehicle is permitted to sleep and sleep-prohibited automated driving during which a driver of the vehicle is not permitted to sleep can be switched therebetween and be performed (para. [0023]: “For example, the driver can indicate that he/she is going to sleep. The automated vehicle in its Active Autonomous Mode may then switch to a more conservative driving style. For example, the system may limit the maximum vehicle speed to 65 mph (depending on the speed limit), stay in the right lane, only pass when the vehicle in front is driving more than ‘X’ mph slower than our desired speed, and/or the like.”; para. [0029]: “ the driver actively selects the sleep mode before the monitoring system permits the driver to fall asleep and rest […] may permit the driver to remain asleep even in the event of an unintentional dozing off (even if the driver had not actively selected the “sleep mode” choice), if the unintentional dozing off occurs at a predetermined nap zone or region or zone that would have been determined to be a nap zone if the driver had requested the nap feature”, wherein sleep mode indicates sleep-permitted automated driving and sleep-prohibited automated driving if the sleep mode is not active).
Smid is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to various types of autonomous driving mode. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the notification timing of ISAMASA in view of Suzuki with the sleep mode of Smid. Doing so will enhance safety of the driver by determining if part of the route is acceptable for the driver to take a nap or is acceptable for the driver to attend to other tasks, but still be available to take over control of the vehicle if necessary (Smid, para. [0016]). ISAMASA in view of Suzuki and further in view of Smid fails to specifically teach varies a frequency of notification according to whether the vehicle is during the sleep-permitted automated driving or during the sleep-prohibited automated driving.
However, Alasry teaches varies a frequency of notification according to whether the vehicle is during the sleep-permitted automated driving or during the sleep-prohibited automated driving (col 5 lines 25-46: “as the detected alertness level moves lower (and thus the alertness of the driver 22 decreases) […] which makes it easier for a drowsy person to navigate; and increase the frequency and/or intensity of notifications to the driver 22 generated by the notification module 18 to make sure that the driver 22 is aware of the notifications.”; cols 5-6 lines 65-2: “instructs the autonomous drive module 14 to take different levels of autonomous control”, wherein higher autonomous level will indicate lower required alertness, thus increase the frequency and/or intensity of notifications).
Alasry is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to various types of autonomous driving mode. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the notification timing of ISAMASA in view of Suzuki and further in view of Smid with the varied notification based on alertness/autonomous level of Alasry. Doing so will enhance safety of the driver ensuring that the driver is aware of the notifications (Alasry, col 5 lines 25-46), when the alertness is low.
Regarding claim 12, ISAMASA in view of Suzuki and further in view of Smid and further in view of Alasry teaches the vehicular control device according to claim 11. ISAMASA and Alasry further teaches wherein when the vehicle is during the sleep-permitted automated driving, the notification control unit increases a frequency of notification notifying that the vehicle is not providing the route guidance as the situation notification as compared with a case where the vehicle is during the sleep-prohibited automated driving (ISAMASA para. [0025]: “when starting the automatic driving of the vehicle toward the temporary destination, the control unit 20 indicates that the user I / F unit 44 starts the automatic driving toward the point that is the temporary destination. […] The processing for prompting the setting of the original destination as described above is continuously or intermittently performed until the destination is set by the operation of the occupant even after the automatic driving to the temporary destination is started”; Alasry col 5 lines 25-46: “as the detected alertness level moves lower (and thus the alertness of the driver 22 decreases) […] which makes it easier for a drowsy person to navigate; and increase the frequency and/or intensity of notifications to the driver 22 generated by the notification module 18 to make sure that the driver 22 is aware of the notifications.”; Alasry cols 5-6 lines 65-2: “instructs the autonomous drive module 14 to take different levels of autonomous control”, wherein higher autonomous level will indicate lower required alertness, thus increase the frequency and/or intensity of notifications).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISAMASA, in view of Suzuki, and further in view of ISHIOKA (US 20200198648 A1).
Regarding claim 13, ISAMASA in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicular control device according claim 1. ISAMASA further teaches wherein (para. [0025]: “when starting the automatic driving of the vehicle toward the temporary destination, the control unit 20 indicates that the user I / F unit 44 starts the automatic driving toward the point that is the temporary destination. The driver is notified through the speaker. In addition, the control unit 20 prompts the driver to set the original destination via the display unit and the speaker of the user I / F unit 44. […] The processing for prompting the setting of the original destination as described above is continuously or intermittently performed until the destination is set by the operation of the occupant even after the automatic driving to the temporary destination is started”), but fails to specifically teach when a non-route guidance transition, which is a transition from a state in which the guidance provision determination unit determines that the route guidance is under way to a state in which the guidance provision determination unit determines that the route guidance is not under way.
However, ISHIOKA teaches when a non-route guidance transition, which is a transition from a state in which the guidance provision determination unit determines that the route guidance is under way to a state in which the guidance provision determination unit determines that the route guidance is not under way (FIG. 3; FIG. 6; FIG. 9; para. [0103]: “Further, even if it becomes impossible to continue the first automated driving state (destination guidance mode), since a transition is made to the second automated driving state (road following mode), automated driving can be continued without being canceled. Therefore, the load imposed on the vehicle occupant is reduced, in comparison with a case in which automated driving is canceled. Further, the host vehicle 100 can be made to travel according to the wishes of the vehicle occupant who has set the automated driving state”; para. [0063]: “In step S2, the driving mode setting unit 94 determines whether or not a destination has been set in the navigation device 16. In the case that the destination is set (step S2: YES), the process proceeds to step S3. On the other hand, in the case that the destination is not set (step S2: NO), the process proceeds to step S4”).
ISHIOKA is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of autonomous driving without a destination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of ISAMASA in view of Suzuki and incorporate cancellation of a destination during autonomous driving of ISHIOKA. Doing so will enhance user experience as load imposed on the vehicle occupant is reduced, in comparison with a case in which automated driving is canceled (ISHIOKA para. [0103]), and further prompt notification regarding destination when the destination is not set as taught by ISAMASA.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISAMASA, in view of Suzuki, and further in view of ISHIOKA, and further in view of Tanahashi.
Regarding claim 14, ISAMASA in view of Suzuki and further in view of ISHIOKA teaches the vehicular control device according to claim 13, but fails to specifically teach comprising: a continuation determination unit that is configured to, when the non-route guidance transition is made during the automated driving without a monitoring obligation of the vehicle, determine whether to continue the automated driving without a monitoring obligation according to at least either a driver operation related to a second task, which is an action other than driving permitted to the driver of the vehicle, or the steering operation of the driver.
However, Tanahashi teaches a continuation determination unit that is configured to, when the non-route guidance transition is made during the automated driving without a monitoring obligation of the vehicle, determine whether to continue the automated driving without a monitoring obligation according to at least either a driver operation related to a second task, which is an action other than driving permitted to the driver of the vehicle, or the steering operation of the driver (FIG. 12; FIG. 13; FIG. 14 S305; FIG. 15; para. [0129]: “The user may use the vehicle compartment of the auto-driving vehicle as a work space, a movie theater, a room for taking a nap, or the like. […] Therefore, in other words, even when no destination is set for the auto-drive of the subject vehicle, simply continuing an auto-drive of the subject vehicle may be foreseen as a need of the user”; para. [0131]: “based on the occupant's selection on the purpose confirmation screen, identifies whether the user has any other purposes other than travel. When an operation indicating an other-than-travel purpose is performed, a purpose selection screen as shown in FIG. 13 is displayed”; para. [0060]: “The occupant state recognizer F6 determines, in succession, whether a state of the driver's seat occupant is in a capable state for performing the drive operation during the auto-drive based on the occupant state data provided from the occupant state sensor 50”, wherein Tanahashi teaches continuing auto-drive in response to determining that the driver intend to perform second tasks as indicated by “other purposes” or switch to manual mode when the driver is in a capable state for performing the drive operation).
Tanahashi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of requesting a destination from the driver. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ISAMASA in view of Suzuki and further in view of ISHIOKA to incorporate the teachings of Tanahashi and allow continuing an auto-drive or switching to manual driving mode based on the driver’s intention. Doing so would enhance user experience by even when no destination is set for the auto-drive of the subject vehicle, simply continuing an auto-drive of the subject vehicle may be foreseen as a need of the user (Tanahashi, para. [0129]).
Regarding claim 15, ISAMASA in view of Suzuki and further in view of ISHIOKA and further in view of Tanahashi teaches the vehicular control device according to claim 14. Tanahashi further teaches wherein when the driver operation related to the second task takes place, the continuation determination unit determines that the automated driving without a monitoring obligation is continued and causes the automated driving without a monitoring obligation to be continued (FIG. 15 S313; para. [0140]: “At S313, the auto-drive processor F5 sets the operation mode to the excursion mode, and plans an excursion route based on the driver seat occupant's boarding purpose. Then, the auto-drive processor F5 starts a process for performing the auto-drive of the subject vehicle along the excursion route”), and when the steering operation by the driver takes place, the continuation determination unit determines that the automated driving without a monitoring obligation is not continued and causes a transition to driving change (FIG. 15 S310; para. [0138]: “At S310, the occupant state recognizer F6 determines whether the driver's seat occupant is in a capable state in which drive authority may be transferrable/delegable based on the occupant state data provided from the occupant state sensor 50. When the driver's seat occupant is in a capable state in which a drive authority may be transferred/delegated, the process proceeds to S311.”; para. [0041]: “Manual drive may not necessarily mean that a driver's seat occupant exercises complete manual control to drive the subject vehicle. That is, even when the drive operation of the subject vehicle is partially controlled by the driver's seat occupant, the subject vehicle may also be partially controlled by the auto-drive ECU 10 for speed control, steering control, and the like, but the operation mode may still be considered as the manual drive mode.”; para. [0060]: “The occupant state recognizer F6 determines, in succession, whether a state of the driver's seat occupant is in a capable state for performing the drive operation during the auto-drive based on the occupant state data provided from the occupant state sensor 50”, wherein capable state indicates driver exercises steering operation, thus indicating when the steering operation by the driver takes place causes a transition to driving change).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISAMASA, in view of Suzuki, and further in view of LEE (US 20210339773 A1).
Regarding claim 25, ISAMASA in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicular control device according to claim 1. The combination of ISAMASA and Suzuki further teaches comprising:
a setting state determination unit that determines a setting state which is a state related to setting of a destination of the vehicle (ISAMASA para. [0040]: “Alternatively, if the destination is not set before reaching the main road HW1 […]”); and
a speed limitation unit that limits a speed of the vehicle to a value lower is a state of the vehicle during the automated driving without a monitoring obligation without the destination set by an occupant of the vehicle, or when in third mode, which is a state of the vehicle during the automated driving without a monitoring obligation, different from the first mode and the second mode (ISAMASA para. [0040]: “Alternatively, if the destination is not set before reaching the main road HW1, […] You may employ | adopt a structure which stops on a road shoulder before reaching | attaining a main road HW1”; Suzuki para. [0104]: “when the incident 1 occurs, the automobile 1 determines whether it is appropriate to move to the hospital or to stop at the shoulder without moving and make a 119 call and wait for the arrival of an ambulance. to decide. When traveling to the hospital is appropriate, the car 1 selects an optimal traveling speed (for example, 30 km / h or less)”), to which a transition is made when reroute, which is re-search for a new route to a destination, takes place based on the setting state determined at the setting state determination unit (ISAMASA para. [0040]: “Alternatively, if the destination is not set before reaching the main road HW1, […] You may employ | adopt a structure which stops on a road shoulder before reaching | attaining a main road HW1”; Suzuki para. [0102]: “instead of specifying a specific destination or destination attribute as a destination, it is possible to select to stop at a road shoulder or the like”, wherein stops on a road shoulder indicates re-search for a new route to a destination), but fails to specifically teach a speed limitation unit that limits a speed of the vehicle to a value lower than a set vehicle speed during the automated driving without a monitoring obligation when a destination is newly searched.
However, LEE teaches a speed limitation unit that limits a speed of the vehicle to a value lower than a set vehicle speed during the automated driving without a monitoring obligation when a destination is newly searched (FIG. 5; para. [0146]: “, the autonomous driving is based on the minimal risk maneuver (MRM) driving mode. At this time, deceleration may be conducted while the current lane is kept. However, the present disclosure is not limited thereto. Depending on the situation, the vehicle is decelerated and stops at a shoulder”).
LEE is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of autonomous driving to a new destination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of ISAMASA in view of Suzuki and incorporate minimal risk maneuver driving of LEE. Doing so will enhance user safety as it reduces the risk of accident while providing time and notification for the driver to respond.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. FUKIO (JP2019086458A) teaches traveling with a temporary selected destination initially, and later prompting for the final destination.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM - 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/ANDREW SANG KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights