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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/17/2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 01/26/2026. Claim(s) 1-11 have been amended. Claim(s) 12 have been added. Claim(s) 1-12 are pending examination. Objections to the abstract, specification, and claims have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. Rejection to claim(s) 5 over the 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. The interpretation of the claims under 35 USC 112(f) is no longer relevant as the applicant has amended the claims to remove the generic placeholder coupled with functional language. This action is made final.
Regarding the objection to claim 9, applicant corrected some parts but not all, nor did they address why they believe objection was wrong. The objection will remain until either amended or an explanation of the current wording is provided.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
The applicant alleges that the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-11 is improper. Applicant asserts that the claims are not a mere abstract idea and represent a practical application.
The applicant alleges that the 35 USC 102/103 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 and/or there is no reason to modify the prior art cited.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10-15, "REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 101", filed 01/26/2026, with respect to claims 1-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-11 has been withdrawn.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner finds it persuasive. The claims when taken as a whole, do have a practical application and perform a concrete control action, i.e. “cause audio content to be output during the duration for which the voice navigation need not be output, based on the estimated duration.” The claim language is not merely an abstract idea performed with generic computer elements. In light of this the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-11 has been removed.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument B, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the elements of Boschker cited by the examiner would lend themselves to the teachings of Yasuhiko. As recited in the cited portions of Boschker, “the navigation device operates in a so-called ‘free driving’ mode, wherein it may provide a graphical indication of the road ahead but without guidance…since it is assumed that the user does not wish to be directed or given guidance, the guidance may be ‘subtly provided e.g. on a display device 206 but not audibly.” This teaching would be directly analogous to the “non-guidance mode” of Yasuhiko. Just because one element of Boschker may appear to be teaching away from Yasuhiko, as alleged, this does not mean the reference as a whole would not be compatible with Yasuhiko. Rather the embodiments cited by the examiner provide a nearly identical form of driving whether called “free driving” or “non-guidance.”
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 2-8 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 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 “each ignition day regarding engine of the vehicle” it is unclear what is meant by this. The examiner took it to mean the date/time of operation of the vehicle. Please edit 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) 1-5 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuhiko (JP-2005-26560) in view of Boschker (WO-2010/040385).
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)
identify, based on the running history information, identifies a frequently-visited place representing a place at which the vehicle has taken a predetermined action for a number of times exceeding a predetermined count; ([0020] teaches the system identifying that a user frequently travels near an area and that the user is currently traveling near that area, this can be based on a repeated number of times traveling near this area)
determine, based on the actual location information frequently-visited place; ([0020] teaches determining that the vehicle is traveling near the frequently visited location based on the location information)
In response to a determination that the vehicle is taking the predetermined action at the frequently-visited place, estimate a duration for which the vehicle is taking the predetermined action at the frequently-visited place as the duration for which the voice navigation need not be output; ([0020]-[0021] teach the navigational system determining that the vehicle is at a location doing an action, i.e. traveling near home, and determining a time period for which no audio will be output by the system) and
cause 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 when no travel route of the vehicle is set.
However, Boschker teaches “when no travel route of the vehicle is set” (Page 21 lines 22-36 and Page 22, lines 1-9; teach a system in which a vehicle is driving in an area with no route set. Based on this determination the system does not output any audio message to guide the user driving the vehicle)
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 Boschker; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of navigation devices for a vehicle. As Boschker teaches, Page 22, lines 3-9; when a driver does not enter a destination to a routing device it appears as if the user does not want interruptions or instructions. The device can determine that no route being set means a driver is in a “free driving mode.” Based on this determination the desire not to be interrupted is understood by the navigation device and this desire is honored.
Claims 10 and 11 are significantly similar in scope and would be rejected under the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 2, Yasuhiko teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: collate a first condition including at least one of the vehicle’s actual location and a time slot corresponding to a current time ([0022] teaches the system determining the vehicle’s current location) with a second condition including at least one of a point of departure, a destination, a time slot of departure, and a day of departure, ([0022] teaches the system determining the vehicle’s current location and comparing it to a potential destination, i.e. next guidance point as well as determining a total trip time from a current location or starting point to the destination)
Yasuhiko does not teach when no travel route of the vehicle is set.
However, Boschker teaches “when no travel route of the vehicle is set.” (Page 21 lines 22-36 and Page 22, lines 1-9; teach a system in which a vehicle is driving in an area with no route set. Based on this determination the system does not output any audio message to guide the user driving the vehicle)
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 Boschker; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of navigation devices for a vehicle. As Boschker teaches, Page 22, lines 3-9; when a driver does not enter a destination to a routing device it appears as if the user does not want interruptions or instructions. The device can determine that no route being set means a driver is in a “free driving mode.” Based on this determination the desire not to be interrupted is understood by the navigation device and this desire is honored.
Regarding claim 3, Yasuhiko teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to: identify, as the frequently-visited place, a travel route on which the vehicle has taken an action of running toward a first-type destination for a number of times exceeding a first-type count, ([0020] teaches the system determining that the vehicle is traveling on a frequently traveled route towards home)
determine whether or not the vehicle is taking the action of running toward the first-type destination on the travel route, based on the actual location information, ([0010] and [0020] teach the system determining the actual location) ([0020] teach using the history of the vehicle’s driving to determine information) and
in response to a determination that the vehicle is taking the action of running toward the first-type destination on the travel route, estimate required time for the vehicle to reach the first-type destination, and as the duration for which the voice navigation need not be output. ([0020]-[0021] teach the navigational system determining that the vehicle is at a location doing an action, i.e. traveling near home, and determining a time period for which no audio will be output by the system)
Yasuhiko does not teach current time and date.
However, Boschker teaches “current time and date,“ (Page 22, lines 10-18; teach using the current date and time to determine vehicle navigation information)
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 Boschker; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of navigation devices for a vehicle. As Boschker teaches, Page 22, lines 3-9; when a driver does not enter a destination to a routing device it appears as if the user does not want interruptions or instructions. The device can determine that no route being set means a driver is in a “free driving mode.” Based on this determination the desire not to be interrupted is understood by the navigation device and this desire is honored. The use of a date and time to assist in the determination of a driving mode allows for optimal device operation as the historic pattern can be matched.
Regarding claim 4, Yasuhiko teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to: identify, as the frequently-visited place, a road on which the vehicle has taken an action of running for a number of times exceeding a second-type count, ([0020] teaches the system identifying a historical route of travel for the vehicle, this includes times travelled on a road)
determine whether or not the vehicle is taking the action of running on the road identified as the frequently-visited place, ([0019]-[0020] teach the system determining that the vehicle is on a specific road approaching an intersection) and
in response to a determination that the vehicle is taking the action of running on the road identified as the frequently-visited place, estimate required time for the vehicle to reach a junction between the road and a second road. ([0019] teaches the system determining that the vehicle is approaching a junction up ahead and determining not to output voice instructions for a specific time)
Regarding claim 5, Yasuhiko teaches the information processing device of claim 4, wherein the second road is a road which is not identified as the frequently-visited place, as duration for which the voice navigation need not be output. ([0019] teaches the system determining that the vehicle is approaching an intersection and outputting or not outputting information based on determining that the vehicle is in a non-guidance period)
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuhiko and Boschker in view of Meredith (US PG Pub 2017/0102244).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yasuhiko and Boschker teaches the information processing device of claim 2.
The combination of Yasuhiko and Boschker does not teach identify, as the frequently-visited place, a stopping place at which the vehicle has taken an action of stopping for a number of times exceeding a third-type count, determine whether or not the vehicle is taking the action of stopping at the stopping place, 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, required time for the vehicle to depart from the stopping place, as the duration for which the voice navigation need not be output.
However, Meredith teaches “identify, as the frequently-visited place, a stopping place at which the vehicle has taken an action of stopping for a number of times exceeding a third-type count,” ([0065] teaches the vehicle determines that it is stopping based on a history of stopping) “determine whether or not the vehicle is taking the action of stopping at the stopping place,” ([0065] and [0074]-[0075] teach a determination that the vehicle is stopping) 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, required time for the vehicle to depart from the stopping place, as the duration for which the voice navigation need not be output.” ([0074] teaches suspending voice command output from the navigation system for a period of time)
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 Boschker with Meredith; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All 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 vehicle’s 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 drive to not be inundated with instructions the entire time they have stopped. This prevents driver annoyances and improves the user experience.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yasuhiko and Boschker teaches the information processing device of claim 6.
The combination of Yasuhiko and Boschker does not teach wherein, the processor is further configured to estimate, as required time for the vehicle to depart as the duration for which the voice navigation need not be output, either average timing of departure timings of the vehicle at the stopping place, or period of time till earliest departure timing of the vehicle.
However Meredith teaches “wherein, the processor is further configured to estimate, as required time for the vehicle to depart as the duration for which the voice navigation need not be output, either average timing of departure timings of the vehicle at the stopping place, or period of time till earliest departure timing of the vehicle.” ([0074] and [0081]-[0083] teach determining a stopping time period based on a departure of a vehicle form 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 and Boschker with Meredith; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All 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 vehicle’s 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 drive to not be inundated with instructions the entire time they have stopped. This prevents driver annoyances and improves the user experience.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuhiko and Boschker in view of Kazushige (JP-2013-002975).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yasuhiko and Boschker teaches the information processing device of claim 2.
The combination of Yasuhiko and Boschker does not teach wherein the identify, as the frequently-visited place, an idling place at which the vehicle has taken an action of idling away for a number of times exceeding a fourth-type count, determine 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 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, as the frequently-visited place, an idling place at which the vehicle has taken an action of idling away for a number of times exceeding a fourth-type count,” ([0061]-[0063] teach determining that a vehicle is idling at a location) “determine 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 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 Boschker 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 Boschker teaches the information processing device of claim 8.
The combination of Yasuhiko and Boschker does not teach calculate the idling period for each ignition spot, each ignition timing, and each ignition day regarding engine of the vehicle, and estimate that 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 regarding engine of the vehicle, and estimate that 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 Boschker 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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuhiko and Boschker in view of Griesmer (US PG Pub 2009/0216433).
Regarding claim 12, Yasuhiko teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: select audio content, of a 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) and
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)
The combination of Yasuhiko and Boschker does not teach related to the frequently-visited travel route.
However, Griesmer teaches “related to the frequently-visited travel route.” ([0058] teaches determining the user’s location on a trip in order to determine content to output. [0055] and [0062] describe that the content provided can be “aural,” in other words audio. Fig. 2 and [0031] teach that the type of non-navigational content to be output could be a series of elements related to the current location including traffic, weather, advertisements, or other miscellaneous content)
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 Boschker with Griesmer; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to navigational devices for a vehicle and limiting output for certain stretches. As Griesmer teaches in [0065] the system can determine an appropriate time period to output content. This non-navigational content can be output as content related to the frequently travelled place, such as weather and traffic. This determination of content to output based on time and location ensures that the user is not bombarded by content that is un-important to the current environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Caine (US Pat 9,347,780) teaches providing navigation instructions to a user for reaching a destination via a route planned on a map of a navigation system, said map comprising a plurality of road segments, at least a subset of said road segments comprising an assigned familiarity score. An aspect includes tracking a route taken by a user. Another aspect includes calculating an updated familiarity score of the one or more road segments of the tracked route using at least one of a user-defined updating variable and an updating variable based on at least one dynamically obtained actual travelling condition. Yet another aspect includes storing the updated familiarity score in a data storage of the navigation system.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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