DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 October 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bauer et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0290816).
For claim 1, Bauer anticipates A method of operation of a navigation system to coordinate navigation between multiple users, the method comprising: determining, by one or more processors, that a first user intends to navigate to a shared destination from a first location, at a first time (see para. 0007); determining, by the one or more processors, that a second user intends to navigate to the shared destination from a second location, at a second time within a threshold interval of the first time (see para. 0007); notifying, by the one or more processors, the first user using an electronic notification that the second user intends to navigate to the shared destination (see para. 0032); receiving, from the first user, an electronic request to coordinate navigation to the shared destination with the second user (see para. 0031); and in response to receiving the electronic request, providing navigation directions to the shared destination to a device associated with the first user in view of a progress of the second user toward the shared destination (see para. 0043).
Regarding claim 2, Bauer further discloses wherein determining that the first user intends to navigate to the shared destination includes determining that the first user and the second user have respective calendar entries referencing the shared destination (see para. 0031).
With reference to claim 3, Bauer further discloses wherein determining that the first user intends to navigate to the shared destination includes determining that electronic messaging between the first user and the second user references the shared destination (see para. 0033).
Referring to claim 4, Bauer further teaches wherein determining that the first user intends to navigate to the shared destination includes receiving a request from the first user, submitted via a user interface of the device operated by the first user, to coordinate navigation to the shared destination with the second user (see para. 0031).
Pertaining to claim 6, Bauer further discloses determining that the first user will arrive at the shared destination earlier than the second user (see para. 0040), and providing an indication that the first user will arrive at the shared destination earlier to the device associated with the first user (see para. 0040).
With regards to claim 17, Bauer further teaches a system comprising: one or more computing devices (see para. 0023); and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computing devices (see para. 0008), cause the system to: determining that a first user intends to navigate to a shared destination from a first location, at a first time (see para. 0007), determine that a second user intends to navigate to the shared destination from a second location, at a second time within a threshold interval of the first time (see para. 0007), notify the first user using an electronic notification that the second user intends to navigate to the shared destination (see para. 0032), receive, from the first user, an electronic request to coordinate navigation to the shared destination with the second user (see para. 0032), and in response to receiving the electronic request, provide navigation directions to the shared destination to a device associated with the first user in view of a progress of the second user toward the shared destination (see para. 0043).
With regards to claim 18, Bauer further teaches wherein to determine that the first user intends to navigate to the shared destination, the instructions cause the system to determine that the first user and the second user have respective calendar entries referencing the shared destination (see para. 0031).
Pertaining to claim 19, Bauer further teaches wherein to determine that the first user intends to navigate to the shared destination, the instructions cause the system to determine that electronic messaging between the first user and the second user references the shared destination (see para. 0033).
Regarding claim 20, Bauer further discloses wherein to determine that the first user intends to navigate to the shared destination, the instructions cause the system to receive a request from the first user, submitted via a user interface of the device operated by the first user, to coordinate navigation to the shared destination with the second user (see para. 0031).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0290816), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Lappe et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0168118).
With reference to claim 5, Bauer teaches applying a machine learning model to first data related to the first user and second data related to the second user to generate a confidence score indicative of a probability that the first user and the second user will choose to coordinate navigation to the shared destination (see para. 0004), the first and the second data including one or more of (ii) calendar entries for the first user and the user second user, or (iii) messaging between the first user and the second user (see para. 0004). However, Bauer does not explicitly teach the first and the second data including one or more of (i) sensor data from respective user devices.
A teaching from Lappe discloses the first and the second data including one or more of (i) sensor data from respective user devices (see para. 0021). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Bauer with the teaching of Lappe based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve how a user would setup an event via voice instead of manually inputting the information.
It is further noted that while the combination of Bauer and Lappe does not explicitly teach machine learning to determine a confidence score and acting when the score is above a threshold, using machine learning to improve automatic processes is well understood and routine in the art and would be obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regards to claim 7, Lappe further teaches wherein providing navigation directions to the shared destination to the first user includes: determining that the first user is ahead of the second user by at least a threshold distance or drive time (see para. 0037); identifying a location at which the first user can wait for the second user (see para. 0037); and notifying the first user of the identified location (see para. 0037).
Pertaining to claim 8, Lappe further discloses wherein identifying the location at which the first user can wait for the second user includes identifying a gas station along the shared route where both the first user and the second user can arrive within a certain period of time (see para. 0037).
For claim 12, Lappe further teaches determining, by the one or more processors, that the first user is likely to stop on a way to the shared destination (see para. 0047); determining a location at which the first user and a second user can stop (see para. 0047); and providing an indication of the location to the device associated with the first user and to the device associated with the second user (see para. 0047).
With reference to claim 13, Lappe further discloses determining that the first user is ahead of the second user by at least a threshold distance or drive time (see para. 0037); identifying a point where the first user and the second user can arrive at proximate times (see para. 0037); and modifying the navigation directions to generate a detour for the first user to arrive at the identified point later than along an original route of the first user (see para. 0041).
Regarding claim 16, Bauer further teaches determining that the first user has arrived at the shared destination (see paras. 0040, 0043). Lappe further discloses providing an interactive prompt to the first user for reporting parking (see para. 0047).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0290816), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of PorstMann et al. (EP 3,051,258 A2), and in view of Lappe et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0168118).
For claim 9, Bauer does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations. A teaching from PorstMann discloses determining, by the one or more processors, a first route from the first location to the destination (see Pg. 6, para. 0005) and a second route from the second location to the shared destination (see Pg. 7, para. 0010), determining, by the one or more processors, a first route from the first location to the destination and a second route from the second location to the shared destination; identifying, by the one or more processors, a shared route corresponding to at least a portion of the first route shared with the second route (see Pg. 7, para. 0010). It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filling date to modify Bauer with PorstMann to include the claimed limitation based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve establishing communication between the users so they can inform about road conditions verbally or discuss the event beforehand.
PorstMann does not explicitly disclose the last limitation. A teaching from Lappe discloses providing an indication of the shared route to the respective devices associated with the first user and the second user (see para. 0036). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Bauer with the teaching of Lappe based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve how a user would setup an event via voice instead of manually inputting the information.
With reference to claim 10, Bauer further discloses in response to determining that the device associated with the first user traversed a segment of the shared route while the device associated with the second user has not yet reached the segment (see paras. 0040, 0028): obtaining road quality and/or traffic data for the segment, and providing the road quality and/or traffic data to a device associated with the second user (see para. 0028).
With regards to claim 11, PorstMann further discloses determining, by the one or more processors, a first route from the first location to the destination (see Pg. 6, para. 0005) and a second route from the second location to the shared destination (see Pg. 7, para. 0010); identifying, by the one or more processors, a shared route corresponding to at least a portion of the first route shared with the second route (see Pg. 7, para. 0010). A teaching from Lappe discloses providing an indication of the shared route to the respective devices associated with the first user and the second user (see para. 0036).
Claim 14 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0290816), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of PorstMann et al. (EP 3,051,258).
With reference to claim 14, Bauer does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations. A teaching from PorstMann discloses in response to receiving the electronic request, automatically setting up a voice chat for the first user and the second user (see Pg. 9, para. 0007). It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filling date to modify Bauer with PorstMann to include the claimed limitation based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve establishing communication between the users so they can inform about road conditions verbally or discuss the event beforehand.
Claim 15 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0290816), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of PorstMann et al. (EP 3,051,258) and in view of Boss et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0284818).
For claim 15, Bauer does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations. A teaching from PorstMann discloses determining, by the one or more processors, a first route from the first location to the destination (see Pg. 6, para. 0005) and a second route from the second location to the shared destination (see Pg. 7, para. 0010); identifying, by the one or more processors, a shared route corresponding to at least a portion of the first route shared with the second route (see Pg. 7, para. 0010). PorstMann does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations.
A teaching from Boss discloses determining that the first user has deviated from the shared route to follow a detour for a portion of the shared route (see para. 0031); and modifying navigation directions for the second user based on the detour (see para. 0031). It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filling date to modify Bauer with Boss to include the claimed limitations based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve deviation notifications based on the motivation to account for unexpected detours from traffic, construction or an accident.
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way. The entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are considered to provide relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the current Office action. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all teachings of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663