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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-12 have been amended. Claim(s) 3-6 have been cancelled. Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-12 are pending examination. The objection of claim 9 is removed in light of the instant amendment. This action is made non-final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
The applicant alleges that the 35 USC 103 rejections of the claims is improper. Applicant asserts that the prior art does not teach all claim limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 11 as amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant has amended the claims in a way that would no longer require the teachings of Boschker. Applicant has rolled up many of the limitations of claim 6 into claim 1. Claim 6 was previously rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Yasuhiko, Boschker, and Meredith. Applicant has presented arguments for why they believe that Meredith does not teach the claim as amended.
Firstly, applicant alleges that Meredith does not teach, “identify, based on the running history information, a stopping place at which the vehicle has taken an action of stopping for a number of times exceeding a first threshold count.” While similar to claim 6, it has been altered from the original presentation. In light of this the examiner would continue to rely on Meredith to teach this. Looking at [0065] of Meredith it states, “if a user has a history of stopping at a particular exit along a route, and the current deviation is occurring at the same location (or in close proximity thereto), the stop may be considered to be expected or at least have a higher probability of being expected.” (Emphasis added.) It is clearly seen here that Meredith is concerned with the stopping history of a user. The system monitors the user’s habits and if they continually stop at the given point, it makes a note that this is a regular occurrence. Furthering this looking at Fig. 2 and [0043]-[0048] the system of Meredith determines various “values” for a given piece of “contextual information.” These values are related to stopping history and trends, the user of the vehicle, point of interest (POI) data, and other relevant road trip data. The system would then monitor these values and if the values exceed a threshold value it knows that the user is in some form of familiar territory or given a reason for the system suspend audio outputs of a kind. This is analogous to the system as claimed.
Secondly, the applicant asserts that Meredith fails to teach,” in response to a determination that the vehicle is taking the action of stopping at the stopping place, estimate based on the running history information, a required time for the vehicle to depart from the stopping place as a duration for which the voice navigation need not be output.” The examiner relied of [0074] to teach this previously and the applicant asserts, while it teaches a “suspension command” it does not define how long to suspend the output. However [0074] recites, “[T]he suspension command 122 can instruct the navigation system 112 or other device to suspend voice guidance for a defined duration or until a trigger event…the defined duration or trigger event can be set as a time such as one minute, thirty seconds, or as a function of a current speed at which the vehicle 110 is travelling; a distance from the route such as one mile, five miles, or the like; an event such as detecting a complete stop or restarting of the vehicle 110, detecting turning around of the vehicle 110, or the like; or other types of events and/or durations…the duration and/or trigger events can be defined in additional and/or alternative manners.” [0074] provides many ways in which the system can determine how long to suspend navigation output for. Additionally, [0081]-[0083] teaches additional ways in which the system can determine if the suspension command is outdated, this includes the passage of time, and/or a departure from a location. The disclosure of Meredith clearly shows that the system is able to use the passage of time to determine that the system can resume or delay the resumption of voice navigation output.
In light of the above the examiner is not convinced that the prior art does not teach the claims as amended. The independent claims 1, 10, and 11 would remain rejected under 35 USC 103, due to amendments. Claims 2, 7-9, and 12 would be rejected at least due to their dependence on rejected subject matter and cited art as applied. Please see the section below titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103,” for detailed explanation and mapping.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites, “an average timing of start timings of the action of stopping at the stopping place” it is unclear what is meant by this. The examiner took it to mean the system finds an average of the time of day that the vehicle stops at a particular place. Please edit it for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuhiko (JP-2005-26560) in view of Meredith (US PG Pub 2017/0102244).
Regarding claim 1, Yasuhiko teaches an information processing device that outputs voice navigation according to a vehicle’s actual location, ([0010] teaches a vehicle navigation device that outputs audio instructions to a vehicle user, based on the location of the vehicle) the information processing device comprising:
a processor, ([0010] teaches the device having a CPU) and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the information processing device to: ([0010] teaches the device having a memory, i.e. a hard disk, and the CPU can perform processes from this disk)
obtain actual location information indicating actual location of the vehicle’s actual location, ([0010] teach a GPS unit to obtain the current location of the vehicle) and running history information indicating travel routes and locations where the vehicle has previously travelled; ([0020] teach the navigation system determining the driving history of the vehicle, this includes frequently travelled routes and locations near some home base)
determine, based on the actual location information whether or not the vehicle is taking the action of stopping at the stopping place; ([0020] teaches determining that the vehicle is traveling near the frequently visited location based on the location information. This frequently visited location includes the home location, i.e. a user’s home. This is the stopping point of a trip, therefore the system determines whether or not the vehicle is stopping at home.)
select, based on the estimated duration, audio content from a plurality of audio contents; ([0021]-[0024] teach the system selecting audio content from a plurality of audio contents to be output based in part on how long the system will not be outputting guidance.) and
cause the selected audio content to be output during the duration for which the voice navigation need not be output, based on the estimated duration. ([0005] and [0017]-[0018] teach the system outputting a selected audio content, i.e. music piece, to be output during a period of non-guidance.)
Yasuhiko does not teach identify, based on the running history information a stopping place at which the vehicle has taken an action of stopping for a number of times exceeding a first threshold count and in response to a determination that the vehicle is taking the action of stopping at the stopping place, estimate, based on the running history information, a required time for the vehicle to depart from the stopping place as a duration for which voice navigation need not be output.
However, Meredith teaches “identify, based on the running history information a stopping place at which the vehicle has taken an action of stopping for a number of times exceeding a first threshold count” ([0065] of Meredith it states, “if a user has a history of stopping at a particular exit along a route, and the current deviation is occurring at the same location (or in close proximity thereto), the stop may be considered to be expected or at least have a higher probability of being expected.” The system monitors the user’s habits and if they continually stop at the given point it makes a note that this is a regular occurrence. Furthering this looking at Fig. 2 and [0043]-[0048] the system of Meredith determines various “values” for a given piece of “contextual information.” These values are related to stopping history and trends, the user of the vehicle, point of interest (POI) data, and other relevant road trip data. The system would then monitor these values and if the values exceed a threshold value it knows that the user is in some form of familiar territory or given a reason for the system suspend audio outputs of a kind. This is analogous to the system as claimed) and “in response to a determination that the vehicle is taking the action of stopping at the stopping place, estimate, based on the running history information, a required time for the vehicle to depart from the stopping place as a duration for which voice navigation need not be output.” ([0074] teaches, “[T]he suspension command 122 can instruct the navigation system 112 or other device to suspend voice guidance for a defined duration or until a trigger event…the defined duration or trigger event can be set as a time such as one minute, thirty seconds, or as a function of a current speed at which the vehicle 110 is travelling; a distance from the route such as one mile, five miles, or the like; an event such as detecting a complete stop or restarting of the vehicle 110, detecting turning around of the vehicle 110, or the like; or other types of events and/or durations…the duration and/or trigger events can be defined in additional and/or alternative manners.” [0074] provides many ways in which the system can determine how long to suspend navigation output for. Additionally, [0081]-[0083] teaches additional ways in which the system can determine if the suspension command is outdated, this includes the passage of time, and/or a departure from a location. The disclosure of Meredith clearly shows that the system is able to use the passage of time to determine that the system can resume or delay the resumption of voice navigation output.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Yasuhiko with Meredith; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to vehicle navigational devices and their systems. As Yasuhiko teaches the vehicle’s running history is used to determine the familiarity and frequency a person may be in an area. As Meredith adds, the idea of determining a stopping time based on history is advantageous to preventing unnecessary instructions. Meredith [0002] teaches that as vehicles deviate from a route the devices will often continue to instruct a driver on how to return to the route. But as [0074]-[0075] add the idea of suspending navigation for a time period allows the driver to not be inundated with instructions the entire time they have stopped. This prevents driver annoyances and improves the user experience.
Claims 10 and 11 are significantly similar in scope and would be rejected under the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 7, the Yasuhiko teaches the information processing device of claim 1.
Yasuhiko does not teach wherein, the processor is further configured to estimate, as the required time for the vehicle to depart from the stopping place as the duration for which the voice navigation need not be output, either an average timing of departure timings of the vehicle at the stopping place, or period of time until an earliest departure timing of the vehicle at the stopping place.
However Meredith teaches “wherein, the processor is further configured to estimate, as the required time for the vehicle to depart from the stopping place as the duration for which the voice navigation need not be output, either an average timing of departure timings of the vehicle at the stopping place, or period of time until an earliest departure timing of the vehicle at the stopping place.” ([0074] and [0081]-[0083] teach determining a stopping time period based on a departure of a vehicle from the stopping point)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Yasuhiko with Meredith; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to vehicle navigational devices and their systems. As Yasuhiko teaches the vehicle’s running history is used to determine the familiarity and frequency a person may be in an area. As Meredith adds, the idea of determining a stopping time based on history is advantageous to preventing unnecessary instructions. Meredith [0002] teaches that as vehicles deviate from a route the devices will often continue to instruct a driver on how to return to the route. But as [0074]-[0075] add the idea of suspending navigation for a time period allows the driver to not be inundated with instructions the entire time they have stopped. This prevents driver annoyances and improves the user experience.
Regarding claim 12, Yasuhiko teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: select audio content, of the plurality of audio contents having a reproduction time shorter than the estimated duration ([0014] teaches the vehicle determining the duration of a non-guidance period and in relation to this, the system can select an audio output that is shorter than the predetermined stoppage time. Additionally, [0021]-[0024] teach the system selecting audio content from a plurality of audio contents to be output based in part on how long the system will not be outputting guidance.)
cause the audio content to be output during the duration for which the voice navigation need not be output. ([0014] teaches outputting the audio content selected. Additionally, [0005] and [0017]-[0018] teach the system outputting a selected audio content, i.e. music piece, to be output during a period of non-guidance.)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuhiko and Meredith in view of Coleman (US Pat 11,118,929).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yasuhiko and Meredith does not teach identify, based on the running history information, an average timing of start timings of the action of stopping at the stopping place; and determine that the vehicle is taking the action of stopping at the stopping place when the action of stopping at the stopping place is started in a predetermined time slot including the average timing.
However, Coleman teaches “identify, based on the running history information, an average timing of start timings of the action of stopping at the stopping place;” (Col. 5, lines 46-56; teach the system determining the average time of day that the vehicle stops at a stopping location) and “determine that the vehicle is taking the action of stopping at the stopping place when the action of stopping at the stopping place is started in a predetermined time slot including the average timing.” (Col. 7, lines 7-21; teach the system determining that the vehicle is stopping at a given location based on the time of day the vehicle is stopping being within a specific time period)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Yasuhiko and Meredith with Coleman; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to vehicle control systems and navigational audio output. As Coleman teaches in Col. 5, lines 46-56; and Col. 5, lines 57-67; users tend to travel in specific time periods between specific locations. Learning a user’s behavior allows the system to determine the specific locations and movements the user is making during the day. By determining a specific time that an action takes the system can anticipate this and adjust its output accordingly.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuhiko and Meredith in view of Kazushige (JP-2013-002975).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yasuhiko and Meredith teaches the information processing device of claim 1.
The combination of Yasuhiko and Meredith does not teach identify, based on the running history information, the stopping place as an idling place at which the vehicle has taken an action of idling away for a number of times exceeding a second threshold count, determine, based on actual location information, whether or not the vehicle is taking the action of idling away at the idling place, and in response to a determination that the vehicle is taking the action of idling away at the idling place, estimate, based on the running history information, an idling period from ignition of an engine of the vehicle to departure of the vehicle, as the duration for which the voice navigation need not be output.
However, Kazushige teaches “identify, based on the running history information, the stopping place as an idling place at which the vehicle has taken an action of idling away for a number of times exceeding a second threshold count,” ([0061]-[0063] teach determining that a vehicle is idling at a location) “determine, based on actual location information, whether or not the vehicle is taking the action of idling away at the idling place,” ([0061]-[0063] teach determining that a vehicle is idling at a location) and “in response to a determination that the vehicle is taking the action of idling away at the idling place, estimate, based on the running history information, an idling period from ignition of an engine of the vehicle to departure of the vehicle, as the duration for which the voice navigation need not be output.” ([0011] and [0062]-[0063] teach preventing the voice guidance from a navigation system from being output)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Yasuhiko and Meredith with Kazushige; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to vehicle navigation devices. As Kazushige teaches in [0011] and [0062]-[0063] when the determination of idling is made a user does not need to be reminded of driving instructions based. Idling vehicles do not need to output guidance every time idling occurs. This would cause driver annoyance and may cause the driver to stop paying attention to instructions. By ensuring that voice guidance is not output every time idling occurs and at frequent idling locations this ensures that drivers are not annoyed and improves the user experience.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yasuhiko and Meredith teaches the information processing device of claim 8.
The combination of Yasuhiko and Meredith does not teach calculate the idling period for each ignition spot, each ignition timing, and each ignition day of the engine of the vehicle, and estimate a statistical value of the calculated idling period as the duration for which the voice navigation need not be output.
However, Kazushige teaches “calculate the idling period for each ignition spot, each ignition timing, and each ignition day of the engine of the vehicle, and estimate a statistical value of the calculated idling period as the duration for which the voice navigation need not be output.” ([0052], [0061]-[0063], [0067] teach determining the idling time and the time to prevent the voice output for a time period of vehicle operation)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Yasuhiko and Meredith with Kazushige; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to vehicle navigation devices. As Kazushige teaches in [0011] and [0062]-[0063] when the determination of idling is made a user does not need to be reminded of driving instructions based. Idling vehicles do not need to output guidance every time idling occurs. This would cause driver annoyance and may cause the driver to stop paying attention to instructions. By ensuring that voice guidance is not output every time idling occurs and at frequent idling locations this ensures that drivers are not annoyed and improves the user experience.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights