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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 16 July 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0145797, filed on 27 October 2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “determine an output point of a pop-up image based on a weight reflecting at least one of an entry failure probability or the traffic information, or a combination thereof, received from the server” which is ambiguous. It is not clear how the “weight” is defined and how the “weight” reflects “an entry failure probability or the traffic information, or a combination”. Further, it is not clear whether there is one weight for all the three elements (i.e., an entry failure probability or the traffic information, or a combination) or different element has different weight. In addition, it is not clear what is “received from the server”, i.e., a weight or an entry failure probability or the traffic information, or a combination. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “determine an output point of a pop-up image based on at least one of an entry failure probability or the traffic information, or a combination thereof, wherein the entry failure probability or the traffic information is received from the server” for the purpose of examination.
Claim 11 recites similar language as claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons above.
Claim 3 recites “…output a re-search guidance message when it is determined that a junction entry is scheduled based on the route to the destination, and the junction entry has failed” which is ambiguous. It is not clear whether the re-search guidance massage is output upon detection of a scheduled junction, detection of a failed junction entry, or both. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “…output a re-search guidance message based on 1. when it is determined that a junction entry is scheduled based on the route to the destination and 2. the scheduled junction entry has failed” for the purpose of examination.
Claim 13 recites similar language as claim 3 and is rejected for similar reasons above.
Claim 6 recites “…wherein the processor is further configured to reset the route guidance information transmitted to the server…” which is ambiguous. It is not clear how the processor, which is on the vehicle, reset the information that has been transmitted to the server. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “…wherein the processor is further configured to reset the route guidance information…” for the purpose of examination.
Claim 16 recites similar language as claim 6 and is rejected for similar reasons above.
Claim 7 recites “determine the pop-up image output point by reflecting the weight to a pop-up image output point preset depending on a type of road” which is ambiguous. It is not clear how the “weight” is defined and how the “weight” being reflected to a pop-up image output point. Further, it is not clear the output point is determined by the “weight” or is determined by reflecting the “weight”. In addition, “the weight” does not have antecedent basis since the “weight” recited in claim 1 is for entry failure probability or traffic information… Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “determine the pop-up image output point based on a type of road” for the purpose of examination.
Claim 17 recites similar language as claim 7 and is rejected for similar reasons above.
Claim 9 recites “…wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the pop-up image output point is farther away from the junction than a preset pop-up image output point as a travel speed decreases when the vehicle travels on a predetermined route including the junction” which is ambiguous. It is not clear whether the comparison is between the pop-up image output point to the junction AND the pop-up image output point to the preset output point OR between the pop-up image output point to the junction AND the preset output point to the junction. Further, it is not clear “as the travel speed decreases” the pop-up image output point changes dynamically with the decreasing speed OR the pop-up image output point being a static point farther away from the junction… Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “…wherein the processor is further configured to determine that a distance between the pop-up image output point and the junction is longer than a distance between a preset pop-up image output point and the junction when the traffic slows down” for the purpose of examination.
Claim 19 recites similar language as claim 9 and is rejected for similar reasons above.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on previously rejected claims.
Claim Interpretation and Contingent Limitations
Claims 12-14, 16 and 19 contain conditional limitations:
Claim 12:
“…outputting the pop-up image including junction entry guidance information when determining that a junction entry is scheduled based on the route to the destination…”
Claim 13:
“…outputting a re-search guidance message when it is determined that a junction entry is scheduled based on the route to the destination...”
Claim 14:
“…transmitting the route guidance information to the server when determining that the vehicle is turned off after reaching the destination…”
Claim 16:
“…resetting the route guidance information transmitted to the server when determining that the vehicle is started again after being turned off”
Claim 19:
“…the pop-up image output point is determined to be farther away from the junction than a preset pop-up image output point as a travel speed decreases when the vehicle travels on a predetermined route including the junction”
With respect to conditional limitations in process claims, MPEP 2111.04 guides
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
As claims 11-20 are process claims, Ex Parte Schulhauser applies to claims 11-20. See MPEP 2111.04, II “contingent claims” ("[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. .. [t]herefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the method steps of claims 12-14, 16 and 19 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim").
For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 12 does not require “…outputting the pop-up image including junction entry guidance information” since “when determining that a junction entry is scheduled based on the route to the destination” introduces a non-required step since “a junction entry is scheduled…” is not required to occur.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-20 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 11 is directed to a method for controlling a vehicle (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 11 recites:
A method for controlling a vehicle, the method comprising:
transmitting, by a processor, at least one of route guidance information provided while the vehicle travels on a route to a destination or traffic information on the route, or a combination thereof, to a server; and
determining, by the processor, an output point of a pop-up image based on a weight reflecting at least one of an entry failure probability or the traffic information, or a combination thereof, received from the server.
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, “determining...an output point of a pop-up image…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (e.g. a driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for controlling a vehicle, the method comprising:
transmitting, by a processor, at least one of route guidance information provided while the vehicle travels on a route to a destination or traffic information on the route, or a combination thereof, to a server; and
determining, by the processor, an output point of a pop-up image based on a weight reflecting at least one of an entry failure probability or the traffic information, or a combination thereof, received from the server.
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 limitations of “transmitting…” and “…received from the server” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (e.g., a processor) to perform the process. In particular, the “transmitting…” and “…received…” steps recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting and collecting data), and amounts to mere data transmission and data gathering, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activities. The “processor” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining step.
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 (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 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 11 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 to perform the determining... amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “transmitting…” and “…received” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “transmitting …” and “…received” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the data transmission and collection are all conventional data transmission and collection, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
As per Claim 1.
Claim 1, an apparatus claim (a device for controlling a vehicle), includes limitations analogous to claim 1 a process claim (a method for).
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 7-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH (US20110320115) in view of Berstis (US6182010).
As to claims 1 and 11, OH teaches a device and a method for controlling a vehicle, comprising:
a communication device in communication with a server (OH para 0050-0054: receiver and transmitter; also see para 0060, Fig. 1, Fig. 2); and
a processor configured to (OH, para 0049: ECU, also see Fig. 2):
transmit at least one of route guidance information provided while the vehicle travels on a route to a destination, or traffic information on the route, or a combination thereof, to the server (OH , para 0060: The receiver 220 receives a variety of information from the target vehicle 100 …and the source vehicle 500 through a wired/wireless communication network…the receiver 220 may receive current position information, transportation information, and fuel efficiency information from the target vehicle 100 or each of the source vehicles 500…; also see Fig. 1, para 0065-0069).
OH does not teach determining an output point of a pop-up image based on a weight reflecting at least one of an entry failure probability or the traffic information, or a combination thereof, received from the server.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Berstis teaches …as the vehicle approaches a given location, e.g., an intersection, a visual image of the location is retrieved and displayed on the graphical display…a photograph of the location that is displayed in a pop-up window…text are superimposed on or associated with the image to facilitate navigation…an arrow overlaid to illustrate that the user should make a given turn (see at least Berstis, col 2, lines 18-32)… the image is displayed in a pop-up window…the given photographic image is displayed when the user reaches a given position relative to the location of interest. Thus, in the example of FIGS. 4-5, the photographic image is displayed at a certain point in time, or when the vehicle reaches a certain position in advance of the intersection, to enable the driver to have sufficient time (given the driving conditions, the speed or travel and the distance) to make an informed navigation decision (see at least Berstis, col 6, lines 9-11, lines 43-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OH so as to include determining an output point of a pop-up image based on a weight reflecting at least one of an entry failure probability or the traffic information, or a combination thereof, received from the server in view of Berstis et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that displaying the image in a popup window at a certain point in time, or when the vehicle reaches a certain position in advance of the intersection given the driving conditions… of Berstis can be used in OH, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine OH and Berstis because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a display method to inform the user of upcoming locations to enable the driver to have sufficient time to make an informed navigation decision (Berstis, col 6, lines 43-50).
As to claims 2 and 12, OH in view of Berstis teaches the device of claim 1 and the method of claim 11.
Berstis further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
output the pop-up image including junction entry guidance information when determining that a junction entry is scheduled based on the route to the destination (Berstis, col 2, lines 30-32: …an arrow overlaid thereupon to illustrate that the user should make a given turn; also see Fig. 5); and
store the route guidance information including location information for each of one or more junctions where the pop-up image was output, and a history of the pop-up image output matching with the location information (Berstis, col 2, lines 33-61: …the image content is collected by other vehicles and stored on given physical media within a user's vehicle…or… stored in a server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OH so as to include outputting the pop-up image including junction entry guidance information when determining that a junction entry is scheduled based on the route to the destination; and storing the route guidance information including location information for each of one or more junctions where the pop-up image was output, and a history of the pop-up image output matching with the location information in view of Berstis et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine OH and Berstis because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a display method to inform the user of upcoming locations to enable the driver to have sufficient time to make an informed navigation decision (Berstis, col 6, lines 43-50).
As to claims 7 and 17, OH in view of Berstis teaches the device of claim 1 and the method of claim 11.
OH modified by Berstis does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to determine the pop-up image output point by reflecting the weight to a pop-up image output point preset depending on a type of road.
However, Berstis does teach …the given photographic image is displayed when the user reaches a given position relative to the location of interest…the photographic image is displayed at a certain point in time, or when the vehicle reaches a certain position in advance of the intersection (Berstis: col 6, lines 43-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when the photographic image is set to be displayed at a certain point in time, the point of display on roads with higher speed limits is further away from the junction than roads with lower speed limits, i.e., different type of roads, for the benefit of enabling the driver to have sufficient time (given the driving conditions, the speed or travel and the distance) to make an informed navigation decision (Berstis: col 6, lines 43-50).
As to claims 8 and 18, OH in view of Berstis teaches the device of claim 2 and the method of claim 12.
OH modified by Berstis does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the pop-up image output point is farther away from the junction than a preset pop-up image output point as the entry failure probability increases.
However, Berstis does teach …the given photographic image is displayed when the user reaches a given position relative to the location of interest…the photographic image is displayed at a certain point in time, or when the vehicle reaches a certain position in advance of the intersection (Berstis: col 6, lines 43-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the photographic image is set to be displayed earlier on a road where the driver need more time to make a proper decision, e.g., a road segment where there is higher chance a driver misses an entrance/exit, for the benefit of enabling the driver to have sufficient time (given the driving conditions, the speed or travel and the distance) to make an informed navigation decision (Berstis: col 6, lines 43-50).
As to claims 9 and 19, OH in view of Berstis teaches the device of claim 2 and the method of claim 12.
OH modified by Berstis does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the pop-up image output point is farther away from the junction than a preset pop-up image output point as a travel speed decreases when the vehicle travels on a predetermined route including the junction.
However, Berstis does teach …the given photographic image is displayed when the user reaches a given position relative to the location of interest…the photographic image is displayed at a certain point in time, or when the vehicle reaches a certain position in advance of the intersection (Berstis: col 6, lines 43-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the photographic image is set to be displayed earlier on a road where the driver need more time to make a proper decision, e.g., a road segment where the traffic slows down and entering/exiting a junction becomes more difficult/complicated, for the benefit of enabling the driver to have sufficient time (given the driving conditions, the speed or travel and the distance) to make an informed navigation decision (Berstis: col 6, lines 43-50).
As to claims 10 and 20, OH in view of Berstis teaches the device of claim 1 and the method of claim 11.
Berstis further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to control the pop-up image to be output via an output device at the determined pop-up image output point (Berstis: col 6, lines 43-50: …the given photographic image is displayed when the user reaches a given position relative to the location of interest…the photographic image is displayed at a certain point in time, or when the vehicle reaches a certain position in advance of the intersection).
Claims 3, 5, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH in view of Berstis as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Kislovskiy (US20180340790).
As to claims 3 and 13, OH in view of Berstis teaches the device of claim 1 and the method of claim 11.
OH modified by Berstis does not teach output a re-search guidance message when it is determined that a junction entry is scheduled based on the route to the destination, and the junction entry has failed; and store the route guidance information including location information for each junction where the re-search guidance message was output and a history of the re-search guidance message output matching with the location information.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kislovskiy teaches …the on-demand transport system can store historical data indicating routes between a start location and a destination in which an unplanned detour (e.g. a missed turn or exit) has caused the driver or an AV to find a different route, or caused a routing resource executing on the driver’s computing device or on-board computing resources of the AV to recalculate a new optimal route…the on-demand transport system can leverage the historical failed ride data, or unplanned detour data, to determine the failed ride risk for each route (see at least Kislovskiy, para 0174, Fig. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OH so as to include output a re-search guidance message when it is determined that a junction entry is scheduled based on the route to the destination, and the junction entry has failed; and store the route guidance information including location information for each junction where the re-search guidance message was output and a history of the re-search guidance message output matching with the location information in view of Kislovskiy et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that recalculate a new optimal route when missed scheduled turn/exit and leveraging the historical failed ride data for the new route of Kislovskiy can be used in OH, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine OH and Kislovskiy because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to accumulate information from driving trips and use the current data and/or historical data to determine a new optimal route when the vehicle misses the planned turn/exit (Kislovskiy, para 0174).
As to claims 5 and 15, OH in view of Berstis teaches the device of claim 1 and the method of claim 11.
Kislovskiy teaches wherein the processor is further configured to receive the entry failure probability calculated by the server based on the route guidance information for each junction received from one or more vehicles (Kislovskiy para 0174: …the on-demand transport system can determine a failed ride risk probability for each route…store historical data indicating routes between a start location and a destination in which an unplanned detour ( e.g. a missed turn or exit) has caused the driver or an AV to find a different route, or caused a routing resource executing on the driver' s computing device or on-board computing resources of the AV to recalculate a new optimal route…leverage the historical failed ride data, or unplanned detour data, to determine the failed ride risk for each route…; also see Fig 15, para 0041-0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OH so as to include wherein the processor is further configured to receive the entry failure probability calculated by the server based on the route guidance information for each junction received from one or more vehicles in view of Kislovskiy et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine OH and Kislovskiy because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to accumulate information from driving trips and use the current data and/or historical data to determine a new optimal route when the vehicle misses the planned turn/exit (Kislovskiy, para 0174).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH in view of Berstis as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Wang (CN107389083 the paragraph numbers are cited based on the attached machine translated copy).
As to claims 4 and 14, OH in view of Berstis teaches the device of claim 1 and the method of claim 11.
OH modified by Berstis does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to transmit the route guidance information to the server when determining that the vehicle is turned off after reaching the destination.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches … Upon reaching the destination, a prompt will appear asking whether to save the corresponding navigation route data… When a selection instruction to save navigation route data is received, the navigation route data is sent to the server so that the server stores the navigation route data and adds the option of the navigation route data to the navigation route list, wherein the navigation route list includes at least one option of the navigation route data (see at least Wang, para 049-0050, para 0132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OH so as to include wherein the processor is further configured to transmit the route guidance information to the server when determining that the vehicle is turned off after reaching the destination in view of Wang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that sending the navigation route data to the server upon reaching destination of Wang can be used in OH, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine OH and Wang because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH in view of Berstis as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Nagashima (JP2006208461, the paragraph numbers are cited based on the attached machine translated copy).
As to claims 6 and 16, OH in view of Berstis teaches the device of claim 4 and the method of claim 14.
OH modified by Berstis does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to reset the route guidance information transmitted to the server when determining that the vehicle is started again after being turned off.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nagashima teaches … The information stored in the operation history storage unit 28 is initialized, for example, when the vehicle is started, and is set to a state in which no previous operation has been performed (see at least Nagashima, para 0020, para 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OH so as to include wherein the processor is further configured to reset the route guidance information transmitted to the server when determining that the vehicle is started again after being turned off in view of Nagashima et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that initializing the stored operation history information when the vehicle is started of Nagashima can be used in OH, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine OH and Nagashima because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664