DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 11/20/2025. 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that Applicant’s amendments to the claim have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
In response to Applicant’s argument that no new matter has been added (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 12), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Identifying the section between output points according to an absence of voice navigation appears to be new matter. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that amended independent claim 1 is not directed to a mental process because it is performed by an information processing device comprising one or more processing circuits (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 15), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The information processing device and one or more processing circuits are generically recited computer components. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the human mind cannot practically obtain positioning data from a sensor, identify successive voice navigation output points based on a route on a map, and estimate the time between the output points (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 16), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. A driver on a highway can observe their current position on a route displayed on a GPS navigation device, predict that they will receive voice navigation instructions to turn onto an upcoming highway entrance and farther exit, and estimate the amount of time it will take to travel between them. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that mapping sensor signals with map geometry and real-time travel time computation exceeds the cognitive abilities of a human (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 16), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, a driver is capable of determining, based on data from a GPS sensor, their current position on a map, and continuously estimate their travel time. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the human mind cannot practically process large datasets from external sensors or estimate and update the recommended time slot (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 16), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. A driver processes large amounts of data from a plurality of sensors (e.g., location, speed, engine speed, coolant temperature, fuel level, etc.) in a vehicle in real-time, and is capable of continuously updating and refining travel time estimates/predictions based on current traffic conditions. It is further noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., processing large datasets) are neither explicitly nor inherently recited in the rejected claim(s). 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 So does not disclose that the passive-navigation portion is a segment between output points of successive voice navigation (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 19), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. So, in paragraph 72, discloses the passive-navigation portion is a segment within the navigation route corresponding to absence of guidance communication to system user, wherein the guidance communication can be silent for the passive-navigation portion. So further discloses, in paragraph 286, that the guidance module implements text-to-speech processing for the text-based instances of the guidance communication and creates the sounds corresponding to the guidance communication through one or more speakers or sound generators. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that So’s active-navigation portion does not start and stop according to voice navigation (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 19), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. So, in paragraphs 69-70, discloses the active-navigation portion is a segment within the navigation route corresponding to outputting detailed guidance communication to the system user while traversing the active-navigation portion. As discussed above, So discloses outputting spoken guidance communication. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that So does not disclose, teach, or suggest that the section is based on the objective, geometric structure of the travel route itself (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 20), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, and further disclosed by So in figure 2, the active- and passive-navigation portions are segments within the navigation route. See rejection below.
Drawings
The amendments to the drawings were received on 11/20/2025.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: VEx (figs. 1 & 3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because, in line 2, “up to the destination” should read “to a destination”. This appears to be a typographical error. 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).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 65, line 6, “SCI” should read “SC1”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 14-15 should each only include a single colon because using multiple colons in a single sentence to form nested lists is grammatically incorrect which makes it confusing to determine the relationships between limitations.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-16 are 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 claims 1 and 14-15, lines 11-12, 11-12 and 13-14, respectively, 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.
Claim 5-13 and 16 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 21, the limitation “the one of more processors are configured to recalculate” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the processors are related to the one or more processing circuits recited in lines 1-2. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the processors comprise the processing circuits.
Regarding claim 14, line 21, the limitation “the one or more processors are configured” renders the claim indefinite because they lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, therefore, it is unclear how they are related to the information processing device recited in lines 1-2. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the information processing device comprises one or more processors.
Regarding claim 16, lines 2-4, the limitation “obtain the route information, the map information, and the positioning data, identify the section, and estimate the expected time of arrival, the expected time of passage, and the time slot on a periodic basis” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the obtaining and identifying steps are periodically repeated or only the estimating step. Paragraph 97 discloses recalculating the time of arrival of the vehicle and the time of passage of the vehicle on a periodic basis, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claim is directed to periodically estimating the expected time of arrival, the expected time of passage, and the time slot.
Claims 5-13 and 16 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 3-15 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 section between output points of successive voice navigation in the travel route as a section in which output of voice navigation is not required, the section identified according to an absence of voice navigation between the output points [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 the driver of the vehicle is recommended [mental process/step],
wherein the one or more processors 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]; and
provide an external device with scheduling information indicating the recommended time slot for dialogue.
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 section between output points of successive voice navigation…” 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 section between output points of successive voice navigation in the travel route as a section in which output of voice navigation is not required, the section identified according to an absence of voice navigation between the output points;
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 the driver of the vehicle is recommended,
wherein the one or more processors 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; and
provide an external device with scheduling information indicating the recommended time slot for dialogue [insignificant post-solution activity (sending 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” and “provide an external device with scheduling information…”, the examiner submits that the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that, as best understood, merely use a computer (information processing device) 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 “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” and “provide an external device with scheduling information…” 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, 6-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire et al. (US 2018/0107216), hereinafter Beaurepaire, in view of So (US 2017/0307396).
Regarding claims 1 and 14-15, as best understood, 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, based on the route information and the map information, a section between points of successive navigation in the travel route as a section in which 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 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 the 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 processors 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. 93: the vehicle can monitor the segment, the driver-passenger and passengers to determine when and where activities are performed); and 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 the section is between output points of successive voice navigation, the section identified according to an absence of voice navigation between the output points.
So, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle navigation systems), discloses a section between output points of successive voice navigation (So; paras. 44-45: guidance set 118 can include a collection of audible or sound information, a collection of text or visual information, or a combination thereof corresponding to the necessary instances of the guidance communication 120 for the particular route … The first device 102 can process the guidance set 118 such as display, audibly recreate, change or convert from text to speech, or a combination thereof to communicate the instances of the guidance communication 120 to the system user 108), the section identified according to an absence of voice navigation between the output points (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 determine segments of the route where voice navigation guidance is not expected to be output, as disclosed by So, to recommend and schedule activities for the driver in the server of Beaurepaire, with the motivation of limiting, controlling, or adjusting an amount of navigational information communicated to the system user based on the familiarity or comfort level of the system user (So; para. 64) thereby reducing unnecessary driver interruptions or distractions.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, 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 specific intersection in the 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 the expected time of arrival of the 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 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), the 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 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; 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).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, 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 that 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) 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).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, 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 known-road section in the 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 the 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 the 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 the expected time of passage of the vehicle through the known-road section, and estimates 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; 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).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, 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. 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?”).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, 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, as best understood, 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, as best understood, 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 16, as best understood, Beaurepaire, as modified, discloses the one or more processors 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 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) on a periodic basis during the running period for which the vehicle runs on the travel route (Beaurepaire; para. 93: the vehicle can monitor the segment, the driver-passenger and passengers to determine when and where activities are performed).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire in view of So as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishibashi (US 2015/0142304).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, 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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire in view of So as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yavor (2016/0217432).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Beaurepaire, as modified, discloses the one or more processing circuits are configured to: send the integrated schedule information to an external device of a 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).
Beaurepaire, as modified, does not explicitly disclose receiving, from the external device, a dialogue appointment with the driver, and when the driver approves the received dialogue appointment, providing the external device with the integrated schedule information in which the dialogue appointment is reflected.
Yavor, in the same field of endeavor (digital calendar systems), discloses receiving, from an external device, a dialogue appointment with an invitee, and when the invitee approves the received dialogue appointment (Yavor; para. 118: each invitee indicated in the meeting request received at 1310 receives a meeting invitation and approves 1325 attendance), providing the external device with 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).
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 request approval of a meeting invite and receive schedule information in response to acceptance of the invitation, as disclosed by Yavor, for the driver of the vehicle, in the server of Beaurepaire, as modified, to yield the predictable result of accurately determining the availability of meeting participants.
Conclusion
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 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
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665