DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 5/18/2026. Claims 1 and 5-16 are pending.
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 submitted on 2/13/2026 has been reviewed and considered.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 4/13/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the new matter has been removed from claim 15 (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 13), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 15 includes the limitation “the section identified according to an absence of voice navigation between the output points”. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that amended claim 1 recites limitations that cannot be practically be performed in the human mind (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 15-16), the Examiner disagrees. Although Applicant asserts that each claim limitation cannot be practically performed in the human mind, arguments are not provided for why the claimed abstract ideas exceed human mental capabilities. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims require identifying, using a route and a map, a section of the route between two points where voice navigation is expected to be output, and estimating the timing of a vehicle transiting the section. A person is clearly capable of determining the points of a route on a map where voice navigation instructions are required, such as at turns and onramps, and identifying sections of the route between those points, such as a straight road between turns. A person is also capable of estimating when they will reach a point on a route in the future, and how long it will take them to travel through it. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that it is manifest that obtaining positioning data from a sensor is not performed in the human mind (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 16), it is noted that the obtaining step is generically recited, and is identified as insignificant pre-solution activity that amounts to merely receiving data. Although a person is also capable of obtaining information from a position sensor, such as by observing the output of a GPS sensor, the Examiner recognizes that the claim as a whole is directed to a computer-implemented process, however, a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that a driver on a highway estimating when they will travel between an upcoming highway entrance and exit, where they will receive voice navigation instructions, is not analogous to the claimed subject matter (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 16-17), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, require identifying, using a route and a map, a section of the route between two points where voice navigation is expected to be output, and estimating the timing of a vehicle transiting the section. A conventional GPS navigation device displays a vehicle’s position on a route on a map. A driver observing the navigation device can recognize that they will be provided voice navigation instructions to enter and exit the next highway on their route, and estimate the time it will take them to travel the highway between them. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that real-time travel time computation exceeds the cognitive abilities of a human (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 17), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. A person is clearly capable of updating their estimation of when they will arrive at a location, or drive through a section of road, based on observing dynamic factors such as traffic congestion on their route. It is further noted, although the human mind processes information in real-time, the claims do not explicitly require the recalculation to be performed in real-time. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims cannot be performed in the human mind because they are rooted in computer technology and cannot exist outside of a computerized or sensor-based system (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 17), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process, and no limitations are recited that cannot be performed on a generic computer. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that providing scheduling information to an external device and displaying information for requesting approval of a dialogue appointment integrates the claim elements into a practical application (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 19-20), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the claims, the dialogue appointment requested by a third person does not rely upon receiving the recommended time slot for dialogue. Further, the claims do not explicitly recite the step of receiving the dialogue appointment from the external device. Therefore, in addition to the abstract ideas mentioned above, the claims amount to merely using generic processing circuits to receive route and map information, send scheduling information to an external device, and display information for requesting approval of a dialog appointment. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the additional elements of claim 1 are not well-understood, routine, and conventional, and therefore amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 20-21), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 is directed to an information processing device comprising one or more processing circuits, a sensor, an external device, and a display unit. All of these additional elements are generically recited computer components that are widely prevalent, and in common use in the automotive industry. As one example, all of the claimed limitations could be implemented on two smartphones, at least one of which is in a vehicle. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Beaurepaire does not disclose segments between output points of voice navigation (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 23-24), it is noted that Beaurepaire is not relied upon to disclose identifying a section between outputs points of voice navigation, rather, Beaurepaire discloses identifying a section of a route in which voice navigation outputs are not required, such as when the vehicle is driven autonomously. It is the combination of Beaurepaire with Chen that is relied upon to disclose identifying a section between adjacent output points of voice navigation. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that So does not disclose the passive-navigation portion is a segment between a first output point of a first voice navigation and a second output point of a second voice navigation subsequent to the first voice navigation in the travel route (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 24), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. So discloses, in figure 2, the audio guidance is turned off between the guidance set instructions “Take 101N” and “Using right 2 lanes; take exit…”, in paragraph 45, the guidance set can be processed to convert from text to speech to communication the instances of guidance communication, and in paragraph 286, the guidance communications are output through speakers. So further discloses, in paragraphs 42-43, the guidance communications in the guidance set correspond to various maneuvers at specific locations along the route. Additionally, So discloses, in figure 2, the passive-navigation (i.e., silent) portion of the route is between the active- and general-navigation portions in which information is communicated to the driver. Therefore, So’s passive-navigation portion is between specific locations in the active- and general-navigation portions in which guidance communications are output from the vehicle’s speakers.
In response to applicant's argument that So’s passive-navigation portion is not bounded by points of successive voice navigation, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the section in which an output of voice navigation is not required is bounded by the first and second output points) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). The claims merely require the section in which an output point of voice navigation is not required to be between the first and second points of voice navigation, but do not require the points to be the start and end points of the of the section. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument that neither Beaurepaire, So nor Navor disclose sending information for requesting approval of a dialogue appointment to a display unit of the vehicle (Applicant’s Remark; p. 24), it is noted that it is the combination of Beaurepaire with Nelson and Yavor that is relied upon to disclose displaying information to the driver requesting approval of a dialogue appointment request be a person other than the driver. See rejection below.
Drawings
The amendments to paragraphs 13 and 16 of the specification, received on 4/13/2026, have resolved the previous objections to the drawings. The objections to figures 1 and 3 are withdrawn, therefore, the drawings received on 11/20/2025 are acceptable.
Specification
The amendments to the abstract and specification were received on 4/13/2026.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not contain markings to show all the changes relative to the previous version of the paragraph, see 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1)(ii). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 6 and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 14-15, lines 27, 28 and 26, respectively, “a third person other than the driver” should read “a person other than the driver”. Claim 13, lines 3-4, should similarly be changed from “the third person” to “the person other than the driver”. The claims only appear to recite a driver and the third person, therefore, it is unclear if there should be a second person, and which person the driver is. It is further unclear if “third person” was intended to read “third party” which is a common and acceptable usage in idiomatic English.
In claim 6, line 6, “based on statistical value” should read “based on a statistical value”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, lines 12-13, the limitation “the section identified according to an absence of voice navigation between the output points” appears to be new matter because the section between output points of successive voice navigation points appears to be an identified section where voice navigation is not expected to be output, however, the voice navigation is dynamically updated, therefore, it cannot be identified as a section where voice navigation is absent until passing through it. There also does not appear to be disclosure of the system suppressing voice navigation outputs thereby ensuring voice outputs will not be issued. Paragraphs 106-109 disclose estimating dynamic periods of time where voice navigation need not [i.e., is not expected to] be output, that correspond with a predicted time spent in congested traffic or waiting to cross an intersection. Paragraph 97 further discloses periodically recalculating the time of passage through the section.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Regarding claim 16, lines 3-5, the limitation “estimate, on a periodic basis during the running period for which the vehicle runs on the travel route, the expected time of arrival, the expected time of passage, and the time slot” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the periodic estimation is different than the recalculating the expected time of arrival, expected time of passage, and time slot in response to changes in the positioning data during a running period for which the vehicle runs on the travel route recited in claim 1, lines 21-23. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that both claims are directed to the same recalculation of the expected time of arrival, expected time of passage, and time slot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP § 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP § 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG ONE): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG TWO): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP § 2106.05
Claims 1 and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an information processing device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP § 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)-(c). Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the analysis. Claim 1 recites:
An information processing device comprising one or more processing circuits configured to:
obtain route information indicating a travel route, among a plurality of travel routes, of a vehicle to a destination, map information corresponding to the travel route, and positioning data from a sensor indicative of actual location information indicating an actual location of the vehicle;
identify, based on the route information and the map information, a first output point of a first voice navigation and a second output point of a second voice navigation subsequent to the first navigation in the travel route [mental process/step];
identify a section between the first output point and the second output point as a section in which an output of voice navigation is not required [mental process/step];
estimate, based on the route information, the map information, and the actual location information, an expected time of arrival of the vehicle to the identified section and an expected time of passage of the vehicle through the identified section, and a time slot from the expected time of arrival to the expected time of passage as a recommended time slot in which interaction with a driver of the vehicle is recommended [mental process/step],
wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to recalculate the expected time of arrival, the expected time of passage, and the time slot in response to changes in the positioning data during a running period for which the vehicle runs on the travel route [mental process/step];
provide an external device with scheduling information indicating the recommended time slot for dialogue; and
send, to a display unit mounted in the vehicle and viewable by the driver, information for requesting approval of a dialogue appointment requested by a third person other than the driver via the external device, such that the information is presented to the driver via the display unit.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “identify … a first output point of a first voice navigation and a second output point of a second voice navigation…” and “identify … a section between the first output point and the second output point…” in the context of this claim encompasses a driver of a vehicle determining that they will not receive voice navigation instructions between receiving instructions to enter and exit an upcoming highway. “Estimate … an expected time of arrival…” and “recalculate the expected time of arrival…” in the context of this claim encompasses the driver continuously estimating how long it will take them to reach the highway entry and exit, based on the traffic conditions they observe. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing device comprising one or more processing circuits configured to [applying the abstract idea using a generic computer component]:
obtain route information indicating a travel route, among a plurality of travel routes, of a vehicle to a destination, map information corresponding to the travel route [pre-solution activity (receiving data)], and positioning data from a sensor indicative of actual location information indicating an actual location of the vehicle [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using a generic sensor];
identify, based on the route information and the map information, a first output point of a first voice navigation and a second output point of a second voice navigation subsequent to the first navigation in the travel route;
identify a section between the first output point and the second output point as a section in which an output of voice navigation is not required;
estimate, based on the route information, the map information, and the actual location information, an expected time of arrival of the vehicle to the identified section and an expected time of passage of the vehicle through the identified section, and a time slot from the expected time of arrival to the expected time of passage as a recommended time slot in which interaction with a driver of the vehicle is recommended,
wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to [applying the abstract idea using a generic computer component] recalculate the expected time of arrival, the expected time of passage, and the time slot in response to changes in the positioning data during a running period for which the vehicle runs on the travel route;
provide an external device with scheduling information indicating the recommended time slot for dialogue [insignificant post-solution activity (sending data)]; and
send, to a display unit mounted in the vehicle and viewable by the driver, information for requesting approval of a dialogue appointment requested by a third person other than the driver via the external device, such that the information is presented to the driver via the display unit [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying data)].
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “obtain route information…”, “obtain … positioning data”, “provide an external device with scheduling information…”, and “send, to a display unit … information … such that the information is presented to the driver…”, the examiner submits that the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processing circuit) to perform the process. In particular, the obtain route information step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of acquiring the vehicle’s route), and amounts to merely receiving data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The obtain positioning data step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of acquiring the vehicle’s position), and amounts to merely gathering data using a generic sensor, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The providing step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a means of sending data to an external device), and amounts to merely sending data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The sending information to the display unit step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a means of displaying information to the driver), and amount to merely displaying data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “one or more processing circuits” and “one or more processors” is/are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing the generic computer function(s) of receiving data, performing scheduling calculations, and sending data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and/or processing circuit to perform the identify, estimate, and recalculate steps amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner submits that the additional limitation(s) of “obtain route information…”, “obtain … positioning data”, “provide an external device with scheduling information…”, and “send, to a display unit … information … such that the information is presented to the driver…” is/are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 except drawn to an information processing method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., a process and a machine) which falls under one of the statutory categories in step 1. Therefore, claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under step 2 for the same reasons above.
Dependent claim(s) 5-13 and 16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 5-13 and 16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1 and 5-16 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire et al. (US 2018/0107216), hereinafter Beaurepaire, in view of Chen et al. (CN 112857392), Nelson et al. (US 2017/0041356) and Yavor et al. (US 2016/0217432), hereinafter Chen, Nelson and Yavor, respectively.
Regarding claims 1 and 14-15, Beaurepaire discloses an information processing device comprising one or more processing circuits (Beaurepaire; fig. 9: processor 300) configured to: obtain route information indicating a travel route, among a plurality of travel routes (Beaurepaire; para. 46: FIG. 4 illustrates an example set of alternate routes and a table 55 for route comparison for routes between origin location 51 and destination location 53. In this embodiment, the route is variable, and the server 125 or mobile device 122 selects the route based on activity selections.), of a vehicle to a destination (Beaurepaire; para. 247: server 125 or the vehicle 124 may calculate a route from an origin to a destination. The origin and/or the destination may be received at the server 125 from the vehicle 124 and the route is calculated from the geographic database), map information corresponding to the travel route (Beaurepaire; para. 22: map developer system 121, including the server 125 and a geographic database 123, exchanges (e.g., receives and sends) data from the vehicles), and positioning data from a sensor indicative of actual location information indicating an actual location of the vehicle (Beaurepaire; para. 113: processor 210 may include a routing module including an application specific module or processor that calculates routing between an origin and destination. The routing module is an example means for generating a routing command based on the current location of the mobile device 122 from the occupancy grid comparison. The routing command may be a route from the route to the destination); identify a section between a first point and a second point as a section in which an output of voice navigation is not required (Beaurepaire; para. 30: The mobile device 122 or the server 125 may identify segments in which autonomous driving is available [a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that voice navigation is not required when a vehicle is autonomously driving, as supported by Applicant’s acknowledgement in para. 82 that “Generally, when the vehicle is running in a self-driving section, since the driver is not driving the vehicle, it can be estimated that voice navigation such as route guidance and traffic information need not be output”] without regard to the type of activity or the degree of autonomous driving. The dotted lines in the route of FIG. 2 indicate that segments A, C and E-H are enabled for autonomous driving.); estimate, based on the route information, the map information, and the actual location information, an expected time of arrival of the vehicle to the identified section and an expected time of passage of the vehicle through the identified section (Beaurepaire; para. 89: Table 6 illustrates the road segment properties [e.g., start and end times] for each of the road segments of the route (road segment 1, road segment 2 . . . road segment n) according to the road segment properties.), and a time slot from the expected time of arrival to the expected time of passage (Beaurepaire; paras. 40-41: Table 50 illustrates an example lookup table that may be stored at mobile device 122 (e.g., local database 133) or server 125 (e.g., database 123) for associating road segments with available activities. The table 50 is an example road segment sequence for the route. In the example illustrated, some activities are available in segment A, but the user must return to operation of the vehicle in segment B. Different activities are available in segment C, but the user must return to the operation of the vehicle in segment D. Finally, various activities are available from segments E to J … While not illustrated, the table 50 may also include an estimated duration for each segment. The estimated duration is an amount of time required to traverse the road segment.) as a recommended time slot in which interaction with a driver of the vehicle is recommended (Beaurepaire; para. 69: activity selection module 200 may instruct the mobile device 122 to schedule or reschedule telephone calls, collaborative sessions, or other events based on the selected route and availability of these activities along the route; para. 44: the user may request an activity and a route and receive a suggested time from the mobile device 122, or indirectly from the server 125. An example query may include “When will be the best time to call contact X on the route today?”), wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to recalculate the expected time of arrival, the expected time of passage, and the time slot in response to changes in the positioning data during a running period for which the vehicle runs on the travel route (Beaurepaire; para. 59: If traffic conditions change along the route, new slots may be created or removed in real time (e.g. if a traffic jam ahead on the route is no longer present). In this way the activity profile may be adjusted in real time.); provide an external device with scheduling information indicating the recommended time slot for dialogue (Beaurepaire; para. 76: The activity selection module 200 may update the calendar according to the planned sequence of activities. That is, a meeting or teleconference may be schedule to synchronize with an upcoming road segments or series of road segments that can accommodate the meeting (e.g., a voice call may require a different level of autonomous driving than a collaboration session) … When the activity involves other passengers or may impact other vehicles, the activity selection module 200 may notify the devices of other vehicles.).
Beaurepaire does not explicitly disclose identifying, based on the route information and the map information, a first output point of a first voice navigation and a second output point of a second voice navigation subsequent to the first voice navigation in the travel route; and the identified section in which the output of voice navigation is not required is between the first output point and the second output point.
Chen, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle navigation systems), discloses identifying, based on route information and map information (Chen; para. 31: in a map application, one or more navigation routes from the starting point to the destination can be generated), a first output point of a first voice navigation and a second output point of a second voice navigation (Chen; para. 31: Guidance points can include points that require guidance during navigation, such as turns, speed limits, and camera stops.
At guidance points, voice prompts can be provided to guide users on how to continue driving or walking.) subsequent to the first voice navigation in a travel route (Chen; para. 41: the silence time of voice broadcast can be determined based on all the guidance points in a navigation path, or it can be determined based on some of the guidance points in the navigation path); and identifying a section in which output of voice navigation is not required between the first output point and the second output point (Chen; para. 40: Based on the guidance point information and voice broadcast data in the navigation route, the silence time of voice broadcast between adjacent guidance points can be estimated. The silence time for voice broadcasting can be the time during which the voice corresponding to the induction point does not need to be broadcast.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the segments, in which the driver is available to talk on the telephone, identified in the server of Beaurepaire to be located between adjacent points where voice guidance is output, as disclosed by Chen, with the motivation of reducing interference between the navigation guidance and the non-navigation content thereby reducing interruptions to the non-navigation content and improving the comfort of the navigation process (Chen; para. 42).
Although Beaurepaire discloses receiving an on-demand request for a meeting (Beaurepaire; para. 75), Beaurepaire, as modified, does not explicitly disclose sending, to a display unit mounted in the vehicle and viewable by the driver, information for requesting approval of the meeting, such that the information is presented to the driver via the display unit.
Nelson, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle teleconference systems), discloses sending, to a display unit mounted in a vehicle and viewable by a driver, information for requesting approval of a dialogue appointment, such that the information is presented to the driver via the display unit (Nelson; para. 46: a meeting configuration request may be outputted by the VCS 1 based on a parsed meeting entry. The VCS 1 may output an accept and decline option at the vehicle display 4 for the meeting configuration request based on the meeting entry scheduled in the calendar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the display, used to select activities such as scheduled meetings or teleconferences, of Beaurepaire, as modified, to prompt the driver to accept a scheduled conference call, as disclosed by Nelson, with the motivation of allowing the driver to be aware of the meeting and providing the option to join the meeting using the infotainment system thereby avoiding delaying or missing the start of the meeting (Nelson; para. 56).
Although Beaurepaire discloses receiving an on-demand request for a meeting (Beaurepaire; para. 75), Beaurepaire, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the meeting is requested by a third person other than the driver via the external device.
Yavor, in the same field of endeavor (digital calendar management), discloses a dialogue appointment is requested by a third person via an external device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the device, involved in the scheduled meeting or teleconference, of another vehicle of Beaurepaire, as modified, to have requested the meeting, as disclosed by Yavor, to yield the predictable result of allowing the driver to join meetings scheduled by other people.
Regarding claim 9, Beaurepaire, as modified, discloses the time slot is a first time slot, and the one or more processing circuits are configured to: estimate a high-driving-burden time slot in which, during the running period for which the vehicle runs on the travel route, there is high driving burden on driver of the vehicle (Beaurepaire; para. 32: Table 40 lists the road segments of the route and an activity sequence that activities may be performed in a first set of road segments (e.g., A, C, and E-H) but activities may not be performed in a second set of road segments (e.g., B, D, I, and J) [e.g., where the burden on the driver is high because the vehicle is not operating autonomously].), and estimate, in a second time slot excluding the high-driving-burden time slot that is estimated from the running period for which the vehicle runs on the travel route, an uninterrupted period of time equal to or longer than a predetermined period of time as the recommended time slot for dialogue (Beaurepaire; para. 90: The expected route characteristics are matched with the activity profiles based on overlap of the road segment properties and the requirements of the activity profiles and corresponding durations.; para. 78: The categories of the activities may include requirement for one or more parameters of the road segments. Example parameters required by the activities may include automation level or mode, duration, smoothness, maneuvers, connectivity, noise level, occupancy, and luminosity. Different activities have a different set of requirements so that they can be performed safely and comfortably during sections of automated driving.; para. 79: The consideration of a minimal time slot for an activity should also be made, hence the duration parameter.)
Regarding claim 10, Beaurepaire, as modified, discloses the one or more processing circuits are configured to identify, based on the route information, the map information, and the actual location information, in the travel route, a high-driving-burden section in which there is high driving burden on driver of the vehicle (Beaurepaire; para. 32: Table 40 lists the road segments of the route and an activity sequence that activities may be performed in a first set of road segments (e.g., A, C, and E-H) but activities may not be performed in a second set of road segments (e.g., B, D, I, and J) [e.g., where the burden on the driver is high because the vehicle is not operating autonomously].), and the one or more processing circuits are configured to estimate an expected time of arrival of the vehicle to the high-driving-burden section, estimate an expected time of passage of the vehicle through the high-driving- burden section (Beaurepaire; para. 89: Table 6 illustrates the road segment properties [e.g., start and end times] for each of the road segments of the route (road segment 1, road segment 2 . . . road segment n), and estimate that a time slot from the expected time of arrival to the expected time of passage represents the high-driving-burden time slot (Beaurepaire; para. 41: table 50 may also include an estimated duration for each segment. The estimated duration is an amount of time required to traverse the road segment).
Regarding claim 11, Beaurepaire, as modified, discloses as the high-driving-burden section, the one or more processing circuits are configured to identify a section involving continuous right turns and left turns in the travel route, or an accident-prone section, or a school zone, or a section involving a lot of bends (Beaurepaire; para. 111: The activity profile may include threshold values, acceptable ranged, or minimum levels for various road characteristics. Road characteristics may include … curviness of the route segment (e.g. curves per km, sharp turns)).
Regarding claim 12, Beaurepaire, as modified, discloses the one or more processing circuits are configured to generate integrated schedule information by integrating the running period for which the vehicle runs on the travel route, the recommended time slot for dialogue during the running period, and schedule information of the driver (Beaurepaire; para. 76: activity selection module 200 may output data to one or more output modules, including the calendar update module … The activity selection module 200 may update the calendar according to the planned sequence of activities. That is, a meeting or teleconference may be schedule to synchronize with an upcoming road segments or series of road segments that can accommodate the meeting (e.g., a voice call may require a different level of autonomous driving than a collaboration session)).
Regarding claim 13, Beaurepaire, as modified, discloses the one or more processing circuits are configured to: send the integrated schedule information to the external device of the third person (Beaurepaire; para. 76: When the activity involves other passengers or may impact other vehicles, the activity selection module 200 may notify the devices of other vehicles), receive, from the external device, the dialogue appointment with the driver (Yavor; para. 118: each invitee indicated in the meeting request received at 1310 receives a meeting invitation and approves 1325 attendance), and when the driver approves the received dialogue appointment, provide the external device with the integrated schedule information in which the dialogue appointment is reflected (Yavor; para. 119: Once the meeting organizer that issued the request (1310) selects from among the time slots presented at 1330, the meeting is scheduled).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Beaurepaire, as modified, discloses the one or more processing circuits are configured to obtain the route information (Beaurepaire; para. 46: FIG. 4 illustrates an example set of alternate routes and a table 55 for route comparison for routes between origin location 51 and destination location 53. In this embodiment, the route is variable, and the server 125 or mobile device 122 selects the route based on activity selections.), the map information (Beaurepaire; para. 22: map developer system 121, including the server 125 and a geographic database 123, exchanges (e.g., receives and sends) data from the vehicles), and the positioning data (Beaurepaire; para. 113: processor 210 may include a routing module including an application specific module or processor that calculates routing between an origin and destination. The routing module is an example means for generating a routing command based on the current location of the mobile device 122 from the occupancy grid comparison. The routing command may be a route from the route to the destination), identify the section (Beaurepaire; para. 30: The mobile device 122 or the server 125 may identify segments in which autonomous driving is available without regard to the type of activity or the degree of autonomous driving. The dotted lines in the route of FIG. 2 indicate that segments A, C and E-H are enabled for autonomous driving.), and estimate, on a periodic basis during the running period for which the vehicle runs on the travel route (Beaurepaire; para. 59: If traffic conditions change along the route, new slots may be created or removed in real time (e.g. if a traffic jam ahead on the route is no longer present). In this way the activity profile may be adjusted in real time.), the expected time of arrival, the expected time of passage (Beaurepaire; para. 89: Table 6 illustrates the road segment properties [e.g., start and end times] for each of the road segments of the route (road segment 1, road segment 2 . . . road segment n), and the time slot (Beaurepaire; paras. 40-41: Table 50 illustrates an example lookup table that may be stored at mobile device 122 (e.g., local database 133) or server 125 (e.g., database 123) for associating road segments with available activities. The table 50 is an example road segment sequence for the route. In the example illustrated, some activities are available in segment A, but the user must return to operation of the vehicle in segment B. Different activities are available in segment C, but the user must return to the operation of the vehicle in segment D. Finally, various activities are available from segments E to J … While not illustrated, the table 50 may also include an estimated duration for each segment. The estimated duration is an amount of time required to traverse the road segment.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire in view of Chen, Nelson and Yavor as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishibashi (US 2015/0142304).
Regarding claim 5, Beaurepaire, as modified, discloses the one or more processing circuits are configured to: identify a traffic congestion section involving traffic congestion in the travel route (Beaurepaire; para. 31: during stop and go traffic, or traffic congestion values higher than a predetermined value, road segments are considered incompatible), estimate the expected time of arrival of the vehicle to the traffic congestion section, estimate the expected time of passage of the vehicle through the traffic congestion section (Beaurepaire; para. 32: Table 40 lists the road segments of the route and an activity sequence that activities may be performed in a first set of road segments (e.g., A, C, and E-H) but activities may not be performed in a second set of road segments (e.g., B, D, I, and J) [e.g., where the burden on the driver is high because the vehicle is not operating autonomously].), and estimate the time slot from the expected time of arrival to the expected time of passage (Beaurepaire; para. 41: table 50 may also include an estimated duration for each segment. The estimated duration is an amount of time required to traverse the road segment).
Beaurepaire, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the traffic congestion section is a section in which the voice navigation need not be output, and defines a time slot in which the voice navigation need not be output.
Nishibashi, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle navigation systems), discloses a traffic congestion section is a section in which voice navigation need not be output, and defines a time slot in which the voice navigation need not be output (Nishibashi; para. 57: the flow of traffic may become very slow in some places due to a traffic jam as the traffic increases. If the continuous guidance is performed at the time of such a traffic jam, the guidance becomes rather redundant. Then, in the case where such places can be previously specified, the correction to decrease the threshold (or the correction to increase the distance between guidance points) may be made for the heavy traffic hours only for such places, so that the continuous guidance is not easily performed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to identify a congested route segment where navigation guidance will not be output, as disclosed by Nishibashi, in the server of Beaurepaire, as modified, to yield the predictable result of reducing unnecessary driver interruptions or distractions.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire in view of Chen, Nelson and Yavor as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of So (US 2017/0307396).
Regarding claim 6, Beaurepaire, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Beaurepaire, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the one or more processing circuits are configured to: identify, as the section in which the voice navigation need not be output, a specific intersection in the travel route, estimate the expected time of arrival of the vehicle to the specific intersection, estimate, based on the expected time of arrival and based on statistical value of required transit time at the specific intersection, the expected time of passage of the vehicle through the specific intersection, and estimate that the time slot from the expected time of arrival to the expected time of passage represents a respective time slot in which the voice navigation need not be output.
So, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle navigation systems), discloses one or more processing circuits are configured to: identify, as a section in which the voice navigation need not be output (So; para. 72: passive-navigation portion 216 is a segment within the navigation route 204 associated with absence of guidance for the system user … guidance communication 120 or the guidance set 118 can be an empty set, place holder, or silence for the passive-navigation portion), a specific intersection in a travel route (So; para. 102: the user familiarity estimate 308 can describe or represent a familiarity or a comfort level for the system user 108 of a specific address, street corner or intersection), estimate an expected time of arrival of a vehicle to the specific intersection, estimate, based on the expected time of arrival (So; para. 126: the goal-achievement estimate 332 can include the specific entrance, exit, or intersection the system user 108 will likely use or access to enter or exit a particular path in achieving or completing the intermediate goal 210. Also for example, the goal-achievement estimate 332 can include an estimated route or an estimated time of arrival for achieving or completing the intermediate goal) and based on a statistical value of required transit time at the specific intersection (So; paras. 234-235: current state module 518 can further determine the current conditions based on accessing a record, a data base, or a service provider, such as for current weather, historical traffic information, current traffic flow rate … The current state module 518 can further compare the current conditions to the user driving pattern 320. For example, the current state module 518 can check for the current conditions along routes or paths associated with the user driving pattern 320. The current state module 518 can generate flags or indications when the current conditions along routes or paths associated with the user driving pattern 320 match predetermined conditions, such as specific weather pattern, delay rate), an expected time of passage of the vehicle through the specific intersection (So; para. 84: navigation system 100 can calculate a location, a duration of travel time, an estimated arrival time … or a combination thereof for the passive-navigation portion), and estimate that a time slot from the expected time of arrival to the expected time of passage represents a respective time slot in which the voice navigation need not be output (So; para. 72: passive-navigation portion 216 is a segment within the navigation route 204 associated with absence of guidance for the system user … guidance communication 120 or the guidance set 118 can be an empty set, place holder, or silence for the passive-navigation portion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have identified the time spent traveling through an intersection as a silent segment that is absent of guidance communication for a user, as disclosed by So, with the motivation of reducing the amount of guidance thereby removing unwanted distractions or interruptions for the driver (So; para. 223).
Regarding claim 7, Beaurepaire, as modified, discloses the one or more processing circuits are configured to: identify, as the section in which the voice navigation need not be output, a self-driving section in the travel route (Beaurepaire; para. 30: The mobile device 122 or the server 125 may identify segments in which autonomous driving is available without regard to the type of activity or the degree of autonomous driving. The dotted lines in the route of FIG. 2 indicate that segments A, C and E-H are enabled for autonomous driving.), estimate the expected time of arrival of the vehicle to the self-driving section, estimate the expected time of passage of the vehicle through the self-driving section (Beaurepaire; para. 89: Table 6 illustrates the road segment properties [e.g., start and end times] for each of the road segments of the route (road segment 1, road segment 2 . . . road segment n) according to the road segment properties.), and estimate the time slot from the expected time of arrival to the expected time of passage (Beaurepaire; para. 41: table 50 may also include an estimated duration for each segment. The estimated duration is an amount of time required to traverse the road segment).
Beaurepaire, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the one or more processing circuits estimate that the time slot of the self-driving section represents a respective time slot in which the voice navigation need not be output.
So discloses one or more processing circuits estimate a time slot of a driving section in which voice navigation need not be output (So; para. 72: passive-navigation portion 216 is a segment within the navigation route 204 associated with absence of guidance for the system user … guidance communication 120 or the guidance set 118 can be an empty set, place holder, or silence for the passive-navigation portion).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that voice navigation is not required when a vehicle is autonomously driving, as supported by Applicant’s acknowledgement in para. 82 that “Generally, when the vehicle is running in a self-driving section, since the driver is not driving the vehicle, it can be estimated that voice navigation such as route guidance and traffic information need not be output”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the identification of the autonomous driving segments in the server of Beaurepaire, as modified, to be identified as silent segments that are absent of guidance communication for a user, as disclosed by So, with the motivation of reducing the amount of guidance thereby removing unwanted distractions or interruptions for the driver (So; para. 223).
Regarding claim 8, Beaurepaire, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Beaurepaire, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the one or more processing circuits are configured to: identify, as the section in which the voice navigation need not be output, a known-road section in the travel route on which the vehicle has run for a predetermined number of times or more in the past, estimate the expected time of arrival of the vehicle to the known-road section, estimate the expected time of passage of the vehicle through the known-road section, and estimate that the time slot from the expected time of arrival to the expected time of passage represents a respective time slot in which the voice navigation need not be output.
So discloses one or more processing circuits are configured to: identify, as a section in which voice navigation need not be output (So; para. 72: passive-navigation portion 216 is a segment within the navigation route 204 associated with absence of guidance for the system user … guidance communication 120 or the guidance set 118 can be an empty set, place holder, or silence for the passive-navigation portion), a known-road section in a travel route (So; para. 72: The passive-navigation portion 216 is a segment within the navigation route 204 associated with absence of guidance for the system user 108. The passive-navigation portion 216 can correspond to absence of the guidance communication 120 to the system user 108. The guidance communication 120 or the guidance set 118 can be an empty set, place holder, or silence for the passive-navigation portion 216. The passive-navigation portion 216 can correspond to a geographic area known, familiar, or comfortable to the system user 108.) on which a vehicle has run for a predetermined number of times or more in the past (So; para. 215: the knowledge module 516 can calculate the user familiarity estimate 308 to represent the system user 108 being familiar with geography of the subject location or area when the point density 310 describes the system user 108 to have visited the subject location or area over a threshold number of times, within a threshold time or frequency, or a combination thereof), estimate an expected time of arrival of the vehicle to the known-road section (So; para. 84: navigation system 100 can calculate a location, a duration of travel time, an estimated arrival time … or a combination thereof for the passive-navigation portion), estimate an expected time of passage of the vehicle through the known-road section, and estimates that a time slot from the expected time of arrival to the expected time of passage represents a respective time slot in which the voice navigation need not be output (So; para. 72: passive-navigation portion 216 is a segment within the navigation route 204 associated with absence of guidance for the system user … guidance communication 120 or the guidance set 118 can be an empty set, place holder, or silence for the passive-navigation portion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have identified the time spent traveling through a familiar section of a route as a silent segment that is absent of guidance communication for a user, as disclosed by So, with the motivation of reducing the amount of guidance thereby removing unwanted distractions or interruptions for the driver (So; para. 223).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights