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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 24 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 02 June 2026 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. The applicant states the operational logic constitutes a “a concrete technical improvement in navigation control technology” and the elements of claim 1 amount to “significantly more”. Respectfully, the examiner disagrees. As shown in the rejection later in this document, the calculations and estimates can be performed in the human mind or with a pencil and paper. They are anticipated by years, which therefore renders them conventional and routine. The additional limitations fall under data gathering and post solution displaying; both considered forms of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitations do not overcome the rejection based on the criteria set for 35 USC 101 as it is considered an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant further states Lei and Tadanori do not teach suppressing an output, nor teaching an error calculation. References have been updated to anticipate this limitations, as outlined in this detailed action.
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to application No. 18/900,886 with remarks filed on 24 August 2026. Claims 1, 5 and 6 are currently pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 August 2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim priority for foreign applications JP2023-178452, filed on 16 October 2023.
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, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, claim 1 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 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below):
Claim 1 recites:
A navigation apparatus to be mounted in a vehicle and configured to provide guidance on a route that the vehicle is to travel, the navigation apparatus comprising:
a positional information acquisition module comprising a processor configured to repeatedly acquire a current position of the vehicle;
a memory configured to store map information;
an output module comprising a processor configured to output information to a user; and - a controller configured to:
set the route to a destination based on the map information;
extract a guidance location on the route based on the current position of the vehicle traveling on the route;
determine whether a traffic light exists on the route;
upon determining that the traffic light exists, calculate a waiting time for the traffic light based on at least one of a signal switching interval and a signal switching time of the traffic light, each stored in the memory or acquired from a server;
estimate a predicted time taken until arrival at the guidance location based on the calculated waiting time; and
calculate an estimated error in the predicted time, the estimated error including a difference between the average waiting time and a maximum waiting time for the traffic light;
calculate an error rate of the predicted time based on the predicted time and the estimated error;
when the error rate is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold, cause the output module to output the predicted time; and
when the error rate exceeds the predetermined threshold, cause the output module to output a distance from the current position to the guidance location, instead of the predicted time,
wherein the controller is configured not to output the predicted time upon detection that a distance from the current position to the guidance location is shorter than a predetermined distance.
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 or with a pencil and paper. For example, “extracting...” and “estimating…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a 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 navigation apparatus to be mounted in a vehicle and configured to provide guidance on a route that the vehicle is to travel, the navigation apparatus comprising:
a positional information acquisition module comprising a processor configured to repeatedly acquire a current position of the vehicle;
a memory configured to store map information;
an output module comprising a processor configured to output information to a user; and - a controller configured to:
set the route to a destination based on the map information;
extract a guidance location on the route based on the current position of the vehicle traveling on the route;
determine whether a traffic light exists on the route;
upon determining that the traffic light exists, calculate a waiting time for the traffic light based on at least one of a signal switching interval and a signal switching time of the traffic light, each stored in the memory or acquired from a server;
estimate a predicted time taken until arrival at the guidance location based on the calculated waiting time; and
calculate an estimated error in the predicted time, the estimated error including a difference between the average waiting time and a maximum waiting time for the traffic light;
calculate an error rate of the predicted time based on the predicted time and the estimated error;
when the error rate is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold, cause the output module to output the predicted time; and
when the error rate exceeds the predetermined threshold, cause the output module to output a distance from the current position to the guidance location, instead of the predicted time,
wherein the controller is configured not to output the predicted time upon detection that a distance from the current position to the guidance location is shorter than a predetermined distance.
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 “a positional…”, “interface…”, “acquire…”, “an output…the controller..”, “cause the output module..” “configured not to output” are considered insignificant. The additional limitations including the memory and controller are generic computer or vehicle components performing generic computer functions, therefore the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process.
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 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller 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 “a positional…”, “interface…”, “acquire…”, “an output…the controller..”, “cause the output module..” “configured not to output” 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 are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller 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.
Dependent claim(s) 5-6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 5-6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1, 5-6 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley (US 20090005984 A1) in view of Kim (US 20130311038 A1) and Wachsman (WO 2022051774 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bradley discloses a positional information acquisition module comprising a processor configured to repeatedly acquire a current position of the vehicle; (see at least Bradley [0013]; "Also ongoing, interlaced with the detection and recording of locations of stoppages is the extrapolation of potential positions (optionally taken from a database of validated routes) and continual comparisons of the present position to a position extrapolated ahead. This extrapolated position can be obtained for various amounts of time, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 seconds, and so on up to so many minutes")
a memory configured to store map information; (see at least Bradley [0013, 0046]; "All the predicted positions can be compared to locations in the database that are stored (and to a minor extent being stored) in memory…Processor 16 has memory 14, which includes volatile and nonvolatile digital memory and can accumulate triples of latitude, longitude and time")
an output module comprising a processor configured to output information to a user; and (see at least Bradley [0050]; " Output OUT1 of processor 16 may be connected to a display as described further hereinafter.")
extract a guidance location on the route based on the current position of the vehicle traveling on the route;(see at least Bradley [0117]; "This process produces a number of linked locations or intersections that can be considered legs of previously traveled routes.")
determine whether a traffic light exists on the route; (see at least Bradley [0011]; "The displayed information can include at least one of: zones of synchronized traffic lights, multiple fields overlaid synchronized states of traffic lights indicated by arrows or the like on underlying moving maps,")
upon determining that the traffic light exists, calculate an average waiting time for the traffic light (see at least [0026]; "i.e. it makes an estimate of whether the vehicle is the first in line the second in line, the third etc. and then uses a predetermined estimates (perhaps from running average) of the time that the traffic between the user and the intersection takes to get moving after the light has turned green. ")
based on at least one of a signal switching interval and a signal switching time of the traffic light, each stored in the memory or acquired from a server; (see at least Bradley [0073]; "A prediction of when the traffic signal becomes a given condition (e.g. a green light) for this particular direction of travel, is developed by determining the experience from previous instances and deduces what the interval between the turnings green is.")
estimate a predicted time taken until arrival at the guidance location based on the calculated average waiting time; (See at least [0171]; "Step S86 predicts ETA for the locations E presented by step S60 by using current and expected locations and the velocity data C (from step S27 of FIG. 6) or as presented by the KI and proximal intersection stream from S39 of FIG. 7A.")
calculate an estimated error in the predicted time, the estimated error including a difference between the average waiting time and a maximum waiting time for the traffic light ; (see at least Bradley [00188]; "The TOCD information will be bounded by the lower limit of the maximum red time (maximum duration) calculated in step S66 of FIG. 7B.") Bradley describes the bounds that represent the range of waiting time, which is used to calculate average vs maximum.
calculate an error rate of the predicted time based on the predicted time and the estimated error; (see at least Bradley [0156, 0157];"For the daily shift, and the TOCD, a calculation of the confidence is made. This is done by using the results of the TOFM from the next four or five attempts to cross the intersection and trying them against the anticipated values…In this embodiment the system calculates all the time differences (corrected for daily shift) among the TOFMs ") The confidence of the calculations can also communicate the amount of error to be expected.
Bradley does not explicitly disclose a controller configured to:set the route to a destination based on the map information; when the error rate is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold, cause the output module to output the predicted time; and when the error rate exceeds the predetermined threshold, cause the output module to output a distance from the current position to the guidance location, instead of the predicted time, wherein the controller is configured not to output the predicted time upon detection that the distance from the current position to the guidance location is shorter than a predetermined distance.
However, Kim teaches a controller configured to:set the route to a destination based on the map information; (see at least Kim [0188]; "When a road guidance request corresponding to the common preference information is received from the user, the controller 701 may select a route (path), which is commonly preferred, from a plurality of routes from the current location to a destination, and provide road guidance information relating to the selected route.")
when the error rate is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold, cause the output module to output the predicted time; and (see at least Kim [0010]; " detecting signal waiting time information of the vehicle from the traffic light information, receiving the information associated with the user profile, included in the information corresponding to the current location of the vehicle, from a server or a storage unit, and outputting the information associated with the user profile to an output unit for the signal waiting time.")
when the error rate exceeds the predetermined threshold, cause the output module to output a distance from the current position to the guidance location, instead of the predicted time, (see at least Kim [0011]; "In accordance with one embodiment of the present disclosure, the method may further include blocking the output of the information associated with the user profile after the signal waiting time elapses.")
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 Bradley to incorporate teachings of Kim which teaches setting the route, output the predicted time, and withholding output when the wait time is larger than expected in order to present an accurate route and travel time to the user for their convenience.
Bradley and Kim do not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured not to output the predicted time upon detection that the distance from the current position to the guidance location is shorter than a predetermined distance
However, Wachsman teaches wherein the controller is configured not to output the predicted time upon detection that the distance from the current position to the guidance location is shorter than a predetermined distance. (see at least Waschman [0011]; "End of the route content based on the context is retrieved and an appropriate time for displaying the end of the route content is identified. In various embodiments, the display time is based on a threshold distance to the destination based on the context and/or the corresponding display template. ")
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 Bradley to incorporate teachings of Wachsman which teaches end of route procedures, which likely omits time to destination, in order to transition a user to the end of the route from mid route.
Regarding claim 5, Kim, Bradley and Wachsman, in combination, disclose the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, furthermore, Kim discloses a communication module comprising a processor configured to acquire traffic information, (see at least Kim [124]; "The controller 407 may receive real-time traffic information from the information providing center and/or terminals (vehicle navigation apparatus) mounted in neighboring vehicles so as to generate road guidance information.")
wherein the controller is configured to, when traffic information indicating a status of congestion of the route is acquired, estimate the predicted time according to the acquired traffic information. (see at least Kim [0135];' "The congestion and travel time status information may include information relating to an average link speed, a travel time, a link delay, and a congestion type.")
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 Bradley to incorporate teachings of Kim which teaches acquiring traffic information to estimate predicted time in order to accurately predict a travel time for the user.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20130311038 A1) in view of Bradley (US 20090005984 A1) and Wachsman (WO 2022051774 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Noguchi (US 12172671 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Kim, Bradley and Wachsman, in combination, disclose the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, furthermore, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to, upon detection that the vehicle passes the guidance location based on the current position, extract a next guidance location on the route and newly set the next guidance location as the guidance location.
However, Noguchi teaches wherein the controller is configured to, upon detection that the vehicle passes the guidance location based on the current position, extract a next guidance location on the route and newly set the next guidance location as the guidance location. (see at least Noguchi [column 8, lines 47-51]; " The navigation control unit 140 may restart the route guidance from the next waypoint that the own vehicle has reached to the set destination point on the basis of the control information received from the route guidance control unit 213 (Step S160).")
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 Bradley to incorporate teachings of Noguchi which teaches extracting the next guidance route once the destination has been passed on order to seamlessly travel between stops.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA VICTORIA HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 at 5712724896. 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.
/HANA VICTORIA HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
