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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are “display module”, “communication module” in claims 40 and 54, and “control unit” in claim 40. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner, the term “display module” has been interpreted as a display panel for providing in a vehicle or a wearable device, according to paragraph [011] of the instant specification. The term “communication module” has been interpreted as a wireless interface module that is in communication with other communication device for receiving information via a wireless, according to paragraph [015] of the instant specification, and the term “control unit” has been interpreted as a processing unit/processor capable of processing data received from an external communication device.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 40-54 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 Claims 40 (and similarly claims 50 and 54), it recites the limitation “wherein the secondary set of information has a larger data size than the primary set of information.”. Terms “primary sets of information” refers to information such as arrows on the display to show the pre-defined event such as intersections, junction and like, and the term “secondary set of information” refers to information provided to the user when it is close to an upcoming event (i.e. intersection, …) according to the dependent claims. However, the scope of the foregoing limitation in claim 40 is unclear, and the specification does not provide an explicit definition or clarification of this limitation. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, and according to the background section and also paragraph [057] of the instant specification, the claimed limitation has been interpreted as the secondary information that are the information received while the upcoming event is within less than a predetermined interval, has larger amount with respect to the primary set of information. In other words, while the vehicle is within a predetermined interval to the upcoming event, it receives and download larger amount of information to display on the screen. Also, term “larger” is a relative term which render the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim is not clear (See MPEP 2173.05(b)).
Regarding claims 43, it recites “the control unit is configured to determine each of the pre-defined riding events on a route of the rider based on an origin and a destination selected by the rider and at least one of: display […] and receive […]”. The claim as written is indefinite because it is not clear whether the at least one of the last two limitations is part of the determination process (i.e. part of determine based on A and B), or the at least one of the last two limitations are performed by the control unit after the determination made that a pre-defined event is on a route of the rider. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the foregoing limitation is interpreted as at least one of the two limitations as recited in the claim, is performed by the control unit after it is determined that a pre-defined event is on a route of the rider.
Regarding claim 52, it recites similar limitation as recited in claim 43, for a method claim. Claim 52, as written, is indefinite for similar reason as stated for the rejection of claim 43 in the previous paragraph.
Claims 41-49 and 51-53 are also rejected as being dependent on indefinite base claims 40, 50 and 54.
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 40-54 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 40-54 are directed to a system, method and device. Therefore, claims 40-54 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step2A, 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.
In this case independent claims 40, 50, and 54 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. Independent claims 40 (and similarly 50, and 54) includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Claim 40 recites:
A rider assist system for a vehicle, comprising: a communication module configured to be in communication with an external communication device; and a display module configured to display information to a rider of the vehicle, wherein the display module is in communication with a control unit, and the control unit is configured to: receive information from the external communication device through the communication module, determine, based on the information received, whether a pre-defined riding event out of a set of pre-defined riding events occurs after a pre-defined interval, receive from the external communication device and display on the display module, a primary set of information irrespective of the pre-defined riding event occurring, and receive from the external communication device and display on the display module, a secondary set of information corresponding to the pre-defined riding event before the pre-defined interval, in addition to the primary set of information, when it is determined that the pre-defined riding event occurs after the pre-defined interval, wherein the secondary set of information has a larger data size than the primary set of information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold 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, “receiving information”, and “determining whether a pre-defined riding event occurs” in the context of this claim encompasses mental process that falls under abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim 9 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claim 50, and 54, which are of similar scope to claim 40, likewise recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, prong I.
101 Analysis – Step2A, 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 idea 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 rider assist system for a vehicle, comprising: a communication module configured to be in communication with an external communication device; and a display module configured to display information to a rider of the vehicle, wherein the display module is in communication with a control unit, and the control unit is configured to: receive information from the external communication device through the communication module, determine, based on the information received, whether a pre-defined riding event out of a set of pre-defined riding events occurs after a pre-defined interval, receive from the external communication device and display on the display module, a primary set of information irrespective of the pre-defined riding event occurring, and receive from the external communication device and display on the display module, a secondary set of information corresponding to the pre-defined riding event before the pre-defined interval, in addition to the primary set of information, when it is determined that the pre-defined riding event occurs after the pre-defined interval, wherein the secondary set of information has a larger data size than the primary set of information.
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.
The “communication module”, “display module” and “control unit” merely describe how to generally “apply” and “display” the otherwise mental judgements using generic components, i.e. merely use a computer (control unit) to perform the processes. Also, the step display on the display module amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 – Step2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 40 (and similarly claims 50, and 54) 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 display module and communication module 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 display on the display module, 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 “communication module”, display module”, and “thin-film transistor display panel” (as recited in claim 54), are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because 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 the mere collection and receiving data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “display…” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence claims 40, 50 and 54 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 41-49, and 51-53 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 41-49, and 51-53, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on the same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 41-49, and 51-53 are patent ineligible.
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.
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.
Claims 40-42, 44-45, 47, and 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al., US 20230058898 A1, hereinafter “Yamada”, in view of Kazawa et al., US20140107917A1, hereinafter “Kazawa”, further in view of BMW at https://youtu.be/_7_LKQy6fXA?si=cn-dqATX7u8SFJR1, Published on 10/10/2021, hereinafter “BMW”.
Regarding claim 40, Yamada discloses:
A rider assist system for a vehicle (Yamada discloses a display device (that is applied to a motorcycle and similar vehicles) that display guidance image to guide the user, See Yamada at least abstract and paragraph [0052]), comprising: a communication module configured to be in communication with an external communication device ([0009], [0052], “a smartphone 10 as a communication device”), [0053], [0056];
and a display module configured to display information to a rider of the vehicle ([0001], [0004], [0008]), wherein the display module is in communication with a control unit ([0010], [0012], [0056], “an image control module 32 that generates a guidance image to be displayed on the combiner 26 based on the information received by the Bluetooth module 31 and emits display light to display the generated guidance image on the combiner 26.”, [0065], [0059]), and the control unit is configured to:
receive information from the external communication device through the communication module (at least, Abstract, [0009], “a wireless communication portion that receives, from a communication device, guidance information including distance information indicative of a distance to a predetermined guidance point”, [0052]-[0053], [0057]),
determine, based on the information received, whether a pre-defined riding event out of a set of pre-defined riding events occurs after a pre-defined interval (at least, Abstract, [0009], [0053], “The car navigation application 14 b is structured so as to calculate the distance from the current location to the next guidance point and the time to when the next guidance point is reached from the current location, based on map information and current location information.”, __Note: guidance point reads on pre-defined riding event__, [0065], [0069], [0072], Fig. 5, __Note: according to at least the cited parts, Yamada discloses generating a guidance image/direction when it is determined that the distance is less than a predetermined first distance which reads on the claimed limitation of determining if a pre-defined riding event occurs after a predefined interval (i.e. predefined distance)__),
Further regarding claim 40, although Yamada discloses:
receive from the external communication device and display on the display module (at least, Abstract, [0009], [0052]-[0053], [0057]), a primary set of information (See Fig. 4 of Yamada, Note: according to claim 45 the primary set of information comprises directional arrows to guide the rider),
However, Yamada doesn’t explicitly disclose a primary set of information irrespective of the pre-defined riding event occurring.
Nevertheless, Kazawa teaches a primary set of information irrespective of the pre-defined riding event occurring (__According to Fig. 5A to Fig. 5D of Kazawa, plurality of arrows indicating intersections to be guided through the route, has been shown along the route (i.e. irrespective of the pre-defined riding event occurring) __).
Further, Yamada discloses:
receive from the external communication device and display on the display module, a secondary set of information corresponding to the pre-defined riding event before the pre-defined interval, in addition to the primary set of information, when it is determined that the pre-defined riding event occurs after the pre-defined interval ( __Note: according to claims 44 and 47, the secondary set of information comprises full map images (corresponding to the pre-defined riding event that is occurring after the pre-defined interval), and further, one or more of an audio feedback, visual feedback or a haptic feedback__, See Yamada Fig. 4, and [0065], “16b is the map around the current location”, and also see Fig. 6, [0078], “an announcement “About 5 km ahead, in the direction of . . . ” is provided by voice guidance.”, Fig. 12, [0116], [0127], See also Fig. 5, and the mapping above for the limitation when it is determined that the pre-defined riding event occurs after the pre-defined interval , __Note: according to Yamada’s disclosure when the distance to the predetermined point (e.g. intersection) is less than a predetermined distance, in addition to the guidance image and direction image (reads on primary information), a voice guidance is also provided which meet the claimed limitations). Moreover, For the purpose of compact prosecution and in alternative rejection, in part, Kazawa also teaches a secondary set of information corresponding to the pre-defined riding event before the pre-defined interval, in addition to the primary set of information, when it is determined that the pre-defined riding event occurs after the pre-defined interval (see for example Figs 5A-5D: in region A1 (which is within a predefined distance of a POI (e.g. an intersection), a voice guidance is also offered, [0061], “offering voice guidance indicating a right or left turn at an intersection through an audio output unit 10”).
Neither Yamada nor Kazawa explicitly states that the secondary set of information has a larger data size than the primary set of information. However, this claimed limitation is well-known in the art to a person of ordinary skill. It would have been obvious that both Yamada and Kazawa provide larger information to the user when a riding event is within a threshold time or distance. To illustrate that this limitation is well-known, consider the BMW navigation system. The BMW system switches to a "live view" (which utilizes a larger data size) when the vehicle is within a predefined distance of an upcoming event, updating the visual display with more prominent arrows. Therefore, it is well-known and obvious that a larger data size is received only when it is determined that the vehicle is within a specified distance (See https://youtu.be/_7_LKQy6fXA?si=cn-dqATX7u8SFJR1 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display device employable for a motorcycle or similar vehicles that notify the rider with the information about upcoming event when the event is within a predetermined interval (or determining in an event will occur after a predetermined interval) as taught by Yamada, to further include providing the information of events (primary information), along the route (regardless of the event being in the predetermined interval), as taught by Kazawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing the rider with comprehensive advance information about the upcoming route, which yield the benefit of enhancing reliability and peace of mind for the driver through improved route awareness. Also, it would have been obvious to further modify it with receiving larger amount of data only when the upcoming event is within a predetermined interval as for example taught by BMW, with motivation of using less data which prevents providing unnecessary information to the rider and avoids the possible distraction.
Regarding claim 41, Yamada teaches the rider assist system as claimed in claim 40, wherein the information received by the control unit comprises navigation data from the external communication device ([0053], e.g. “the location information (current location information) obtained by the GPS receiver”).
Regarding claim 42, Yamada teaches the rider assist system as claimed in claim 40, wherein the pre-defined interval comprises a pre-defined distance and/or a pre-defined time (at least [0006], “predetermined distance”, [0059], “a time image 33c indicative of the time required to reach the guidance point”), the control unit is configured to determine whether the pre-defined riding event out of the set of pre-defined riding events occurs after a pre-defined distance (Note: guidance point reads on predefined riding events), and the control unit is configured to determine whether the pre-defined riding event out of the set of pre-defined riding events occurs after a pre-defined time ([0059], “an estimated arrival time is displayed by a clock diagram in the lower left part.”, [0069], Figs. 7 and 8, [0078]).
Regarding claim 44, Yamada teaches the rider assist system as claimed in claim 40, wherein the secondary set of information comprises full map images corresponding to the pre-defined riding event that is occurring after the pre-defined interval (See Fig. 4 of Yamada, [0065], “16b is the map around the current location”, See also Fig. 5 __Note: According to Yamada’s disclosure when the distance to an event is less than a predetermined distance, the information is displayed on the display, which reads on determining that the pre-defined riding event occurs after the pre-defined interval (i.e. pre-defined distance)__)
Regarding claim 45, Yamada teaches the rider assist system as claimed in claim 40, wherein the primary set of information comprises directional arrows to guide the rider for navigating the vehicle through the one or more pre-defined riding events that are along a path of an origin and a destination (__See also rejection of similar limitation in claim 40__, See Fig. 4 of Yamada).
Regarding claim 47, Yamada teaches the rider assist system as claimed in claim 40, wherein the secondary set of information further comprises one or more of an audio feedback to a wearable device, a visual feedback on a display panel or visor of the wearable device, or a haptic feedback on a handlebar of the vehicle (Fig. 6, [0078], “an announcement “About 5 km ahead, in the direction of . . . ” is provided by voice guidance.”, Fig. 12, [0116], [0127]).
Regarding claim 50, the claim recites a method for assisting a rider for a vehcile and encompasses similar limitations as in claim 40. Therefore, it is rejected under the same ground as stated for the rejection of claim 40.
Regarding claim 51, the claim recites similar limitations as in claims 41 and 42, Therefore, it is rejected under the same ground as stated for the rejection of claims 41 and 42.
Claims 43 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Kazawa and BMW, or in alternative rejection, claims 43 and 52 are rejected as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Kazawa and BMW, and further in view of Ohdachi et al., US20030078729A1, hereinafter “Ohdachi”.
Regarding claims 43 and 52, modified Yamada teaches the rider assist system and method as claimed in claim 40 and 50, wherein the control unit is configured to determine each of the pre-defined riding events on a route of the rider based on an origin and a destination selected by the rider ([0053], “automatically searching for a route from the current location to the destination based on the location information (current location information) obtained by the GPS receiver 12 and the destination information inputted on the touch panel 15 and making route setting by using the microcomputer 14. The car navigation application 14 b is structured so as to calculate the distance from the current location to the next guidance point and the time to when the next guidance point is reached from the current location, based on map information and current location information. On the touch panel 15, guidance information up to a predetermined guidance point is displayed.”, __Note: guidance information which reads on pre-defined riding event is displayed based on the route that is selected by the user or automatically by searching __) and at least one of: display the secondary set of information corresponding to a specific pre-defined riding event before the pre-defined interval, in addition to the primary set of information (See Yamada Fig. 4, and [0065], “16b is the map around the current location”, and also see Fig. 6, [0078], “an announcement “About 5 km ahead, in the direction of . . . ” is provided by voice guidance.”, Fig. 12, [0116], [0127], See also Fig. 5, __Note: according to Yamada’s disclosure when the distance to the predetermined point (e.g. intersection) is less than a predetermined distance, in addition to the guidance image and direction image (reads on primary information), a voice guidance is also provided which meet the claimed limitations). Moreover, For the purpose of compact prosecution and in alternative rejection, in part, Kazawa also teaches display the secondary set of information corresponding to a specific pre-defined riding event before the pre-defined interval, in addition to the primary set of information (see for example Figs 5A-5D: in region A1 (which is within a predefined distance of a POI (e.g. an intersection), a voice guidance is also offered, [0061], “offering voice guidance indicating a right or left turn at an intersection through an audio output unit 10”).
Although the last two limitations are written in the alternative (i.e. at least one of: display…., and receive…..) and only one needs to be addressed in the rejection, but only for the purpose of compact prosecution, Kazawa teaches also receive information corresponding to each of the pre-defined riding events before a start of a ride (Kazawa, Fig. 5A-5D, shows all the riding events between the origin and destination before a start of a ride), or in alternative rejection, Ohdachi et al., US20030078729A1 more explicitly teaches receive information corresponding to each of the pre-defined riding events before a start of a ride (Ohdachi, [0019], “the contents of the route guidance information can easily be grasped at the time of confirming the route before starting or during traveling on the site.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display device employable for a motorcycle or similar vehicles that notify the rider with the information about an upcoming event when the event is within a predetermined interval (or determining in an event will occur after a predetermined interval) as taught by Yamada, to further display secondary information in addition to the primary information as taught by Yamada or in alternative as taught by Kazawa and further have modified the invention to include the primary information even before the start of the route as taught by Kazawa, or in alternative rejection, as taught by Ohdachi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing the rider with comprehensive advance information about the upcoming route, which yield the benefit of enhancing reliability and peace of mind for the driver through improved route awareness.
Claim 46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Kazawa and BMW, further in view of KTM MY RIDE: Taking Motorcycle Connectivity Places - Cycle News , hereinafter “Cycle News”.
Regarding claim 46, Yamada teaches the rider assist system as claimed in claim 40, wherein the vehicle is a saddle type vehicle ([0052], “the present invention is applied to a motorcycle”, “also employable for vehicles other than motorcycles such as jet skis, bicycles and snowmobiles (snow bikes)”), and the saddle type vehicle is provided with a visor for providing frontal coverage to the display panel (Fig. 1).
While, Yamada’s disclosure fails to teach that a display panel is provided on an instrument panel on a handlebar of the vehicle, however, this is a design choice and also well-known and common to place a display panel on an instrumental panel on a handlebar of the vehicle, See for example, KTM MY RIDE: Taking Motorcycle Connectivity Places - Cycle News.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display device as taught by modified Yamada, to further place a display panel on a vehicle handlebar __ a common practice in motorcycles, as for example shown in Cycle News__ with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing the rider with an easily viewable display directly in their line of sight.
Claims 48 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Kazawa and BMW, further in view of Hideki, JP2012057955A, hereinafter “Hideki”.
Regarding claims 48 and 53, modified Yamada teaches the rider assist system and methos as claimed in claims 40 and 50, however Yamada doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is configured to monitor whether one or more vehicle parameters lie within a pre-defined range corresponding to an origin and a destination selected by the rider, when the one or more vehicle parameters do not lie within the pre-defined range, the control unit is configured to suggest one or more solutions enroute the destination selected by the rider.
Nevertheless, Hideki, teaches wherein the control unit is configured to monitor whether one or more vehicle parameters lie within a pre-defined range corresponding to an origin and a destination selected by the rider, when the one or more vehicle parameters do not lie within the pre-defined range, the control unit is configured to suggest one or more solutions enroute the destination selected by the rider ([0025], “When the remaining fuel amount of the fuel-deficient host vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, [] a fuel supply facility existing within a predetermined range from the current position of the host vehicle is searched based on the map data recorded in the HDD 13, and the search result is proposed.”, __Note: fuel amount reads on vehicle parameter according to the definition of vehicle parameter recited in claim 49, a predetermined threshold reads on a predefined range and proposing a fuel facility along the route reads on suggesting a solution__ ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display device as taught by modified Yamada, to include the step of recommending a solution along the route based on a vehicle parameter as taught by Hideki. This combination would have been made with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of improving the rider assist system to automatically suggest solutions when predetermined vehicle parameters fall outside appropriate ranges, thereby improving ride reliability, comfort, and safety.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Kazawa and BMW, further in view of Hideki, further in view of MacNeille et al., US7865298B2, hereinafter “MacNeille”
Regarding claim 49, modified Yamada teaches the rider assist system as claimed in claim 48, however, Yamada doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the one or more vehicle parameters comprise availability of battery capacity, health of sensors and actuators, health of power train and tyre pressure, and the control unit is configured to optimise a route from an origin to a destination selected by the rider based on at least distance, duration, and the one or more vehicle parameters.
Nevertheless, although Hideki discloses the control unit is configured to optimise a route from an origin to a destination selected by the rider based on at least distance, duration, and the one or more vehicle parameters ([0025]-[0026]), however, Hideki is silent about one or more vehicle parameters comprise availability of battery capacity, health of sensors and actuators, health of power train and tyre pressure, and instead the vehicle parameter in Hideki’s disclosure is a fuel amount.
Although it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute fuel amount with battery capacity when applying Hideki’s teachings to an electric vehicle, to arrive at the claimed invention, however, just for the purpose of compact prosecution, MacNeille teaches the forgoing limitation for the vehicle parameter as being battery capacity, (See at least, Col 3 Lines 30-34 “The method also includes selecting one of the routes based at least in part on the determined operating characteristics and the received vehicle operating preference, and providing an informational output indicating the selected route.”, Col 7, last paragraph, Col 9 Lines 15-44, “battery management”, Claims 1 and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display device as taught by modified Yamada, to include the step of recommending a solution along the route based on a vehicle parameter as taught by Hideki, particularly based on battery capacity as taught by MacNeille. This combination would have been made with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of improving the rider assist system to automatically suggest solutions when predetermined vehicle parameters like battery capacity fall outside appropriate ranges, thereby improving ride reliability, comfort, and safety.
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada, in view of Kazawa, further in view of BMW, further in vie view of Kim et al., US 20210129862 A1.
Regarding claim 54, Yamada discloses:
A display module for a rider assist system (Yamada discloses a display device (that is applied to a motorcycle and similar vehicles) that display guidance image to guide the user, See Yamada at least abstract and paragraph [0052]),
and the display module being in communication with a control unit ([0056], [0058]),
wherein the control unit is configured to: receive information from an external communication device through a communication module (at least, Abstract, [0009], “a wireless communication portion that receives, from a communication device, guidance information including distance information indicative of a distance to a predetermined guidance point”, [0052]-[0053], [0057]),
determine, based on the information received, that whether a pre-defined riding event out of a set of pre-defined riding events occurs after a pre-defined interval (at least, Abstract, [0009], [0053], “The car navigation application 14 b is structured so as to calculate the distance from the current location to the next guidance point and the time to when the next guidance point is reached from the current location, based on map information and current location information.”, __Note: guidance point reads on pre-defined riding event__, [0065], [0069], [0072], Fig. 5, __Note: according to at least the cited parts, Yamada discloses generating a guidance image/direction when it is determined that the distance is less than a predetermined first distance which reads on the claimed limitation of determining if a pre-defined riding event occurs after a predefined interval (i.e. predefined distance)__),
Further regarding claim 54, although Yamada teaches:
receive from the external communication device and display on the display panel (at least, Abstract, [0009], [0052]-[0053], [0057]), a primary set of information (See Fig. 4 of Yamada, Note: according to claim 45 the primary set of information comprises directional arrows to guide the rider),
However, Yamada doesn’t explicitly disclose a primary set of information irrespective of the pre-defined riding event occurring.
Nevertheless, Kazawa, teaches a primary set of information irrespective of the pre-defined riding event occurring (__According to Fig. 5A to Fig. 5D of Kazawa, plurality of arrows indicating intersections to be guided through the route, has been shown along the route (i.e. irrespective of the pre-defined riding event occurring) __).
Further, Yamada discloses:
receive from the external communication device and display on the display panel, a secondary set of information corresponding to the pre-defined riding event before the pre-defined interval, in addition to the primary set of information, when it is determined that the pre-defined riding event occurs after the pre-defined interval ( __Note: according to claims 44 and 47, the secondary set of information comprises full map images (corresponding to the pre-defined riding event that is occurring after the pre-defined interval), and further, one or more of an audio feedback, visual feedback or a haptic feedback__, See Yamada Fig. 4, and [0065], “16b is the map around the current location”, and also see Fig. 6, [0078], “an announcement “About 5 km ahead, in the direction of . . . ” is provided by voice guidance.”, Fig. 12, [0116], [0127], See also Fig. 5, and the mapping above for the limitation when it is determined that the pre-defined riding event occurs after the pre-defined interval , __Note: according to Yamada’s disclosure when the distance to the predetermined point (e.g. intersection) is less than a predetermined distance, in addition to the guidance image and direction image (reads on primary information), a voice guidance is also provided which meet the claimed limitations). Moreover, For the purpose of compact prosecution and in alternative rejection, in part, Kazawa also teaches a secondary set of information corresponding to the pre-defined riding event before the pre-defined interval, in addition to the primary set of information, when it is determined that the pre-defined riding event occurs after the pre-defined interval (see for example Figs 5A-5D: in region A1 (which is within a predefined distance of a POI (e.g. an intersection), a voice guidance is also offered, [0061], “offering voice guidance indicating a right or left turn at an intersection through an audio output unit 10”).
Neither Yamada nor Kazawa explicitly states that the secondary set of information has a larger data size than the primary set of information. However, this claimed limitation is well-known in the art to a person of ordinary skill. It would have been obvious that both Yamada and Kazawa provide larger information to the user when a riding event is within a threshold time or distance. To illustrate that this limitation is well-known, consider the BMW navigation system. The BMW system switches to a "live view" (which utilizes a larger data size) when the vehicle is within a predefined distance of an upcoming event, updating the visual display with more prominent arrows. Therefore, it is well-known and obvious that a larger data size is received only when it is determined that the vehicle is within a specified distance (See BMW at https://youtu.be/_7_LKQy6fXA?si=cn-dqATX7u8SFJR1 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display device employable for a motorcycle or similar vehicles that notify the rider with the information about upcoming event when the event is within a predetermined interval (or determining in an event will occur after a predetermined interval) as taught by Yamada, to further include providing the information of events (primary information), along the route (regardless of the event being in the predetermined interval), as taught by Kazawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing the rider with comprehensive advance information about the upcoming route, which yield the benefit of enhancing reliability and peace of mind for the driver through improved route awareness. Also, it would have been obvious to further modify it with receiving larger amount of data only when the upcoming event is within a predetermined interval as for example taught by BMW, with motivation of using less data which prevents providing unnecessary information to the rider and avoids the possible distraction.
Further regarding claim 54, the prior art relied upon doesn’t disclose the display module comprising: a Thin-Film Transistor display panel configured for displaying data to a rider;
However, using a thin-film transistor (TFT) display panel are well-known and common in modern vehicles. For example, Kim teaches a path providing device for a vehicle and teaches the display module comprising: a Thin-Film Transistor display panel configured for displaying data to a rider (at least [0086]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display device as taught by Yamada in view of the prior arts relied upon, to further include a thin film transistor display as, for example, taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of improving the performance of the display device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 pm 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 Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights