DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Application
Claims 1-8, and 11-12, are pending.
Claims 1-2, and 11-12, are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 9 and 10 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are independent claims.
Claims 1-8, and 11-12, will be examined.
This Final Office action is in response to the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks,” and “Amended Claims” dated 01/12/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments and amended claims, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to claims 1-8, and 11-12, have been fully considered and Applicant' s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Regarding Objection to Title, the applicant’s response has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the Objection to Title is withdrawn.
Regarding Claim Objections, the applicant’s response has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Objection to claims 1, 11, and 12, is withdrawn.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the applicant’s response has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, and the amended claim limitation, “generating a driving route for the vehicle on map data having higher accuracy than the map data based on the path information stored in the database; transmitting the generated driving route to a controller that autonomously controls traveling of the vehicle,” the amendment does not overcome the Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims do not disclose a limitation, “start controlling the vehicle.” Furthermore, the specification does appear to disclose a vehicle will now follow the route as a result of “transmitting the generated driving route,” based upon “higher accuracy map data”
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, and the remarks, “Keisuke does not teach the claimed selective logic and autonomous-driving route handling recited in amended claim 1,” the Office respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant's remarks against the references individually (i.e. Keisuke), one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, regarding applicant's remarks ““hindsight reasoning, using the invention as a roadmap to find its prior art components” is improper…” it must be recognized that any judgement on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ209 (CCPA 1971).
The prior art combination of Sekiguchi, Keisuke, and Ueyama, disclose/teach all limitations discloses/teaches (i) "acquiring a path type indicating whether a target path on which the vehicle is traveling among the path at a timing when the reroute request is acquired is a first path or a second path bifurcating from the first path, included in the road network;" (ii) "determining whether or not there is a target bifurcation to the second path ahead along a traveling direction of the vehicle, if it is determined that the target path is the first path based on the path type;" (iii) "deleting the path information stored in the database regarding the first path or the second path at a point spaced forward along the traveling direction of the vehicle by a predetermined distance or more from the point, if there is the target bifurcation;" (iv) "generating a driving route for the vehicle on map data having higher accuracy than the map data based on the path information stored in the database;" and (v) "transmitting the generated driving route to a controller that autonomously controls traveling of the vehicle," within paragraph(s) and/or claim(s) disclosed within the non-final rejection dated 10/22/2025.
It remains the Offices stance that the cited prior art anticipates or renders obvious this claimed subject matter.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant' s arguments.
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.
Claims 1-9, and 11-12, are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea in the form of acquiring, generating, determining, path information, vehicle routing/rerouting, and path type.
Regarding eligibility step 1, the claimed invention of claim 1 falls into at least one of the statutory categories; namely, method, and device(s).
Proceeding to eligibility step 2, prong I, the limitations of acquiring, generating, determining, path information, vehicle routing/rerouting, and path type as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. processor(s), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and computer). That is, other than reciting by a computing device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processing/processor(s), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and computer” language, “acquiring, generating, and determining,” in the context of this/these claim(s) encompasses the user manually performing steps of making a decision about the path information, vehicle routing/rerouting, and path type, for a vehicle. For example, but for the by a computing device language, “acquiring, generating, and determining,” in the context of this claim(s) encompasses the user thinking about and generating the path information, vehicle routing/rerouting, and path type, for a vehicle. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s)s an abstract idea.
Proceeding to eligibility step 2A, prong II, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a computing device (i.e. processor(s), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and computer) to perform acquiring, generating, and determining, steps. The processor/processing in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of acquiring, generating, and determining, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims disclose “acquiring, generating, determining, and analyzing certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Proceeding to eligibility step 2B, claims 1, 11, and 12, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform acquiring, generating, and determining steps amounts to no 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.
The limitations of “deleting path information” and “transmitting the generated driving route,” amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer which do not render an abstract idea eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception.
Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claims 1, 11, and 12.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle with the acquiring, generating, determining, path information, vehicle routing/rerouting, and path type as disclosed within claim 10. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4, 7, and 11-12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEKIGUCHI, US 20190162544, herein further known as Sekiguchi, in view of KEISUKE, JP 2012220447, herein further known as Keisuke, further in view of UEYAMA et al., WO 2013030974, herein further known as Ueyama, further in view of SUZUKI, US 20220017076, herein further known as Suzuki.
Regarding claim 1, Sekiguchi discloses acquiring a path information on a path included in a road network set on a map data (¶¶ [0007-0010], route (i.e. path) information, route (i.e. path) in first/second map data) (¶¶ [0002], links and nodes constituting a road network, [0056], road network (node coordinates, link connection relations, or the like), see also FIG. 4), and generating a route that a vehicle is scheduled to travel in correspondence with the road network based on the path information stored in a database (¶¶ [0036-0038], [0045], generates a route along which the vehicle 100 needs to travel using the map data), acquiring a path type (¶¶ [0005-0009], different branch points) indicating whether a target path on which the vehicle is traveling among the path at a timing acquired is a first path (¶ [0056], road between a node (28, 64) and a node (131, 73) is constituted by four links 1101, 1102, 1103 and 1104, and 2101, 2102, 2103, 2104, and 2105) or a second path bifurcating from the first path (¶ [0056], a road branching from the above-described road, see FIG. 4, 1105, 1106, 2106, 2107), included in the road network (¶¶ [0002], links and nodes constituting a road network, [0056], road network (node coordinates, link connection relations, or the like), see also FIG. 4), determining whether or not there is a target bifurcation to the second path ahead along a traveling direction of the vehicle (¶¶ [0127], see also FIG. 6), if it is determined that the target path is the first path based on the path type (¶¶ [0062], [0162], result 530 is converted into the route information 560, correct route) and transmitting the generated driving route to a controller that autonomously controls traveling of the vehicle (¶¶ [0036-0040]).
However, Sekiguchi does not explicitly state acquiring a reroute request indicating an instruction to regenerate the route and deleting the path information stored in the database regarding the first path or the second path at a point spaced forward along the traveling direction of the vehicle by a predetermined distance or more from the point, if there is the target bifurcation; generating a driving route for the vehicle on map data having higher accuracy than the map data based on the path information stored in the database.
Keisuke teaches acquiring a reroute request indicating an instruction to regenerate the route (¶¶ [0077], determine the route information is "re-route timing" (step SA4: Yes)… a re-search request, (step SA5), and deleting the path information stored in the database regarding the first path or the second path at a point spaced forward along the traveling direction of the vehicle, if there is the target bifurcation (¶¶ [0085-0089], specifies a branch point (i.e. target bifurcation), remove (discard) the re-search path… deleted (discarded) from the path information file, ¶ [0086], predetermined position around the branch point, (i.e. predetermined distance or more from the point), see also FIG. 5-7).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sekiguchi the acquiring a reroute request indicating an instruction to regenerate the route and deleting the path information stored in the database regarding the first path or the second path at a point spaced forward along the traveling direction of the vehicle if there is the target bifurcation as taught by Keisuke.
One would be motivated to modify Sekiguchi in view of Keisuke for the reasons stated in Keisuke, a more robust method and system identifies a spot branching between the route output on the output part and the searched re-search route transmitted from the navigation server, and causes the output part to output the searched re-search route if a predetermined output condition related to the identified branching spot is satisfied and is capable of notifying a re-search route at an appropriate timing without confusing a user.
Furthermore, Ueyama teaches a predetermined distance or more from the point of the target bifurcation (page 13, paragraph 2, position Q3…, see also FIG. 29, and claim 15).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sekiguchi the predetermined distance or more from the point of the target bifurcation as taught by Ueyama.
One would be motivated to modify Sekiguchi in view of Ueyama for the reasons stated in Ueyama , a more robust method and system which avoids occupant feeling a sense of incongruity, anxiety, or discomfort where there is a branch road ahead of the vehicle, the occupant is concerned about whether the vehicle will travel with or without changing the direction of travel so that the vehicle will select the desired travel path and pass through the branch road.
Furthermore, Suzuki teaches generating a driving route for the vehicle on map data having higher accuracy than the map data based on the path information stored in the database (¶¶ [0040-0042], highly accurate map information).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sekiguchi the generating a driving route for the vehicle on map data having higher accuracy than the map data based on the path information stored in the database as taught by Suzuki.
One would be motivated to modify Sekiguchi in view of Suzuki for the reasons stated in Suzuki paragraph [0011], more robust method and system producing a navigation route to a place allowing safe stopping/parking, by using the highly accurate map information.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sekiguchi, Keisuke, Ueyama, and Suzuki, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Sekiguchi does not explicitly state determining whether or not there is a target bifurcation to the second path ahead along the traveling direction of the vehicle, if it is determined that the target path is the first path based on the path, and not deleting the path information stored in the database, if there is not the target bifurcation.
Keisuke teaches determining whether or not there is a target bifurcation to the second path ahead along the traveling direction of the vehicle, if it is determined that the target path is the first path based on the path, and not deleting the path information stored in the database, if there is not the target bifurcation (¶¶ [0084-0086], see also FIG. 4, ¶ [0092] see also FIG. 12-13, wherein the guidance route remains, and there is no bifurcation).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sekiguchi the determining whether or not there is a target bifurcation to the second path ahead along the traveling direction of the vehicle, if it is determined that the target path is the first path based on the path type, and not deleting the path information stored in the database, if there is not the target bifurcation as taught by Keisuke.
One would be motivated to modify Sekiguchi in view of Keisuke for the reasons stated in Keisuke, a more robust method and system identifies a spot branching between the route output on the output part and the searched re-search route transmitted from the navigation server, and causes the output part to output the searched re-search route if a predetermined output condition related to the identified branching spot is satisfied and is capable of notifying a re-search route at an appropriate timing without confusing a user.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sekiguchi, Keisuke, Ueyama, and Suzuki, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Sekiguchi does not explicitly state deleting the path information stored in the database regarding the first path or the second path at a point spaced forward along the traveling direction of the vehicle by a predetermined distance or more from the point where the second path bifurcates from the first path, if it is determined that the target path is the second path based on the path type.
Keisuke teaches deleting the path information stored in the database regarding the first path or the second path at a point spaced forward along the traveling direction of the vehicle by the second path bifurcates from the first path, if it is determined that the target path is the second path based on the path (¶ [0085], apparatus 100 can delete (discard) unnecessary path information, see also FIG. 6-7).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sekiguchi the deleting the path information stored in the database regarding the first path or the second path at a point spaced forward along the traveling direction of the vehicle by a predetermined distance or more from the point where the second path bifurcates from the first path, if it is determined that the target path is the second path based on the path type as taught by Keisuke.
One would be motivated to modify Sekiguchi in view of Keisuke for the reasons stated in Keisuke, a more robust method and system identifies a spot branching between the route output on the output part and the searched re-search route transmitted from the navigation server, and causes the output part to output the searched re-search route if a predetermined output condition related to the identified branching spot is satisfied and is capable of notifying a re-search route at an appropriate timing without confusing a user.
Furthermore, Ueyama teaches a predetermined distance or more from the point of the target bifurcation (page 13, paragraph 2, position Q3…, see also FIG. 29, and claim 15).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sekiguchi the predetermined distance or more from the point of the target bifurcation as taught by Ueyama.
One would be motivated to modify Sekiguchi in view of Ueyama for the reasons stated in Ueyama , a more robust method and system which avoids occupant feeling a sense of incongruity, anxiety, or discomfort where there is a branch road ahead of the vehicle, the occupant is concerned about whether the vehicle will travel with or without changing the direction of travel so that the vehicle will select the desired travel path and pass through the branch road.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sekiguchi, Keisuke, Ueyama, and Suzuki, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Sekiguchi does not explicitly state setting the predetermined distance larger as a traveling speed of the vehicle is greater.
Ueyama teaches setting the predetermined distance larger as a traveling speed of the vehicle is greater (page 6, In step 230… reference distance Lf is calculated to be larger as the vehicle speed V is higher).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sekiguchi the setting the predetermined distance larger as a traveling speed of the vehicle is greater as taught by Ueyama.
One would be motivated to modify Sekiguchi in view of Ueyama for the reasons stated in Ueyama , a more robust method and system which avoids occupant feeling a sense of incongruity, anxiety, or discomfort where there is a branch road ahead of the vehicle, the occupant is concerned about whether the vehicle will travel with or without changing the direction of travel so that the vehicle will select the desired travel path and pass through the branch road.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sekiguchi, Keisuke, Ueyama, and Suzuki, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 1 above.
Sekiguchi discloses further the road network ¶¶ [0002], links and nodes constituting a road network, [0056], road network (node coordinates, link connection relations, or the like), see also FIG. 4) is set by a navigation device, and the path information is transmitted by the navigation device (¶ [0038]).
Regarding claim 11, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 1. The device taught/disclosed in claim 11 can clearly perform the methods of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 1. The storage medium and computer devices taught/disclosed in claim 12 can clearly perform the methods of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sekiguchi, Keisuke, Ueyama, and Suzuki, in view of CHEN et al., US 20190020573, herein further known as Chen.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sekiguchi, Keisuke, Ueyama, and Suzuki, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Sekiguchi does not explicitly state if it is determined that the target path does not correspond to either the first path or the second path based on the path type, deleting all the path information stored in the database.
Chen teaches if it is determined that the target path does not correspond to either the first path or the second path based on the path type, deleting all the path information stored in the database (¶ [0038], adding new paths would result in the new paths being discarded and all paths being marked as inactive).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sekiguchi if it is determined that the target path does not correspond to either the first path or the second path based on the path type, deleting all the path information stored in the database as taught by Chen.
One would be motivated to modify Sekiguchi in view of Chen for the reasons stated in Chen paragraph [0001], a more robust method and system wherein shortest path problems will not be computationally expensive.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sekiguchi, Keisuke, Ueyama, and Suzuki, in view of EDWARDS et al., US 20200080851, herein further known as Edwards.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sekiguchi, Keisuke, Ueyama, and Suzuki, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Sekiguchi does not explicitly state the first path is longer than the second path.
Edwards teaches the first path is longer than the second path (¶ [0044], first route 110 may be longer than the second route 112).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sekiguchi the first path is longer than the second path as taught by Edwards.
One would be motivated to modify Sekiguchi in view of Edwards for the reasons stated in Edwards paragraph [0002], more robust method and system to control machines using characteristics which thereby improving safety.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sekiguchi, Keisuke, Ueyama, and Suzuki, in view of PU, US 20170225687, herein further known as Pu.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sekiguchi, Keisuke, Ueyama, and Suzuki, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Sekiguchi does not explicitly state the path information is acquired by communication based on a protocol defined in Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Interface Specifications (ADASIS).
Pu teaches the path information is acquired by communication based on a protocol defined in Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Interface Specifications (ADASIS) (¶¶ [0005], and [0054]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sekiguchi the path information is acquired by communication based on a protocol defined in Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Interface Specifications (ADASIS) as taught by Pu.
One would be motivated to modify Sekiguchi in view of Pu for the reasons stated in Pu paragraph [0004], more robust method and system which allows comfortable, anticipatory, energy-saving, possibly time-saving, but particularly safe driving in any case.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666