CTFR 18/900,886 CTFR 100974 Detailed Action Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This FINAL communication is in response to application No. 18/900,866 filed on September 30, 2024. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-6 have been rejected as follows. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 30, 2025 and April 03, 2026 is being considered by the examiner. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim priority for foreign applications JP2023-178452, filed on October 16, 2023. Response to Arguments Applicant's amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth in the office action of 16 December 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth in the office action of 16 December 2025 have been withdrawn. 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 16 December 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. The applicant states that “repeatedly acquire a current position of the vehicle” cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The positional information acquisition interface falls under data gathering; a form 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. Furthermore, Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-6 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 16 December 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-6 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 a method of navigating a vehicle (i.e., a process). 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 cause the output interface module to output 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. For example, “extracting...” and “estimating…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (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 via a control system comprising: 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 cause the output interface module to output 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..”, 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..”, 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) 3-6 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/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 3-6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 1. Therefore, claim(s) 1, 3-6 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Teruyasu (JP 2008134140 A) in view of Tamara (US 20090005969 A1), Nogushi (US 12172671 B2), Nishibashi (US 20150142304 A1), Kato (US 6101443 A), Uno (US 20160223337 A1), Tadanori (JP 5292941 B2) and Lei (US 20200231179 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Teruyasu teaches a memory configured to store map information; (see at least [0051]; "The memory 9 is composed of a rewritable device such as an EEPROM (Electrically Erasable & Programmable Read Only Memory) or flash memory, and stores information and data necessary for the operation of the navigation device 100.") Teruyasu describes a memory configured to store information and data necessary for the operation of the navigation device, such as map information. Teruyasu does not explicitly disclose a positional information acquisition module comprising a processor configured to repeatedly acquire a current position of the vehicle; 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 cause the output interface module to output 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. However, Tamura teaches a positional information acquisition module comprising a processor configured to repeatedly acquire a current position of the vehicle; (see at least [0049]; "The control unit 101 processes the acquired detailed map information and displays a map of the area surrounding the current position and a mark indicating the current position on the image display unit 107. The process described above is performed repeatedly at predetermined intervals of time such that the mark indicating the vehicle position is displayed on the map of the area surrounding the current position, ") cause the output module to output the predicted time, (see at least [104]; "The control unit 101 repeatedly calculates the estimated arrival time at the destination point and the estimated return time at the parking lot at which the vehicle is parked, and the control unit 101 displays, on the image display unit 107, calculated arrival time and return time") 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 Teruyasu to incorporate the teachings of Tamura which teaches a positional information acquisition module repeatedly acquire the current position of the vehicle and cause the output module to output the predicted time in order to track the vehicle along it’s route and provide up to date ETA’s to a user, as well as output that information for the user’s planning convenience. Teruyasu and Tamura, in combination, do not explicitly teach 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; 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. However, Kato teaches an output module comprising a processor configured to output information to a user; and (see at least [0025]; " An audio processor 11 is connected to the speaker 13. This audio processor 11 is connected via the CPU local bus 15 to the CPU 2 and ROM 4. CPU 2 allows audio waveform data for use in presenting voice guidance, as read from ROM 4, to be input to audio processor 11.") 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 Teruyasu to incorporate the teachings of Kato which teaches an output module comprising a processor to output information to the user in order for the device to let the user know pertinent information such as ETA so that they may plan accordingly to avoid excessive wait times. Kato, Tamura and Teruyasu, in combination, do not explicitly disclose 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; 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. However, Noguchi teaches a controller configured to: set the route to a destination based on the map information; (see at least [004]; "The vehicle control apparatus sets a traveling route to a destination point on the basis of map information,") 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 Teruyasu to incorporate the teachings of Noguchi which teaches a controller configure to set a route to a destination based on the map information in order to provide accurate navigation data to the user in order to travel to the desired destination. Noguchi, Kato, Tamura and Teruyasu, in combination, do not explicitly disclose a 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; 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. However, Nishibashi teaches extract a guidance location on the route based on the current position of the vehicle traveling on the route; (see at least [0045]; "If the continuous guidance determination part 18 has determined to perform the continuous guidance (Yes in step S7), the control part 10 performs guidance on a guidance point subsequent to the current position (first guidance point) and guidance on a subsequent guidance point (second guidance point) continuously at one time by using the display part 19 and the audio guidance part 21 serving as the guidance part (step S8)") 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 Teruyasu to incorporate the teachings of Nishibashi which teaches extracting a guidance location on the route based on the position of the vehicle along the route in order to assist the drive in following the directions so that they do not miss a turn and lengthen their travel time. Nishibashi, Noguchi, Kato, Tamura and Teruyasu, in combination, do not explicitly disclose 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; 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. However, Uno teaches determine whether a traffic light exists on the route; (see at least [0093]; "For example, the communication unit 101 acquires traffic information which is information necessary for calculating a movement time from the road traffic information center, and outputs the acquired traffic information to the database 102. The traffic information is information representing movement cost of each of the links, which are sections in terms of intersections, traffic signals, junctions, or the like") 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 Teruyasu to incorporate the teachings of Uno which teaches determining whether a traffic light exists on the route to use that information to calculate an accurate time of travel for the user’s convenience. Uno, Nishibashi, Noguchi, Kato, Tamura and Teruyasu, in combination, do not explicitly disclose 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; 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. However, Tadanori teaches 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; (see at least [005]; " a signal change timing information storage processing means that determines whether the vehicle is stopped based on a vehicle speed signal, and if it is determined that the vehicle is stopped, measures the time from when the vehicle stops before a traffic light installed on the road being traveled until it starts moving again, and measures the time from when it starts moving before the traffic light until it stops again, and stores signal change timing information indicating the timing of the traffic light change in a storage medium; ") estimate a predicted time taken until arrival at the guidance location based on the calculated waiting time; and (see at least [005]; " displays the estimated time of arrival at the destination when traveling along the guided route, and is characterized by comprising: … a first estimated time of arrival correction means that obtains signal change timing information for each traffic light present on the guided route from the storage medium, identifies the number of traffic lights present on the guided route and the waiting time for each traffic light present on the guided route, and corrects the estimated time of arrival at the destination so that the more traffic lights present on the guided route there are, the later the estimated time of arrival at the destination, and the longer the waiting time for each traffic light present on the guided route, the later the estimated time of arrival at the destination") 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 Teruyasu to incorporate the teachings of Tadanori which teaches using the traffic light information to calculate an accurate travel time to provide an accurate estimation of travel time for the user’s convenience. Tadanori, Uno, Nishibashi, Noguchi, Kato, Tamura and Teruyasu, in combination, do not explicitly disclose 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. However, Lei teaches 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. (see at least [0081]; " Next, from when the driving data and the profile data are transmitted to the server device 200 until a predetermined time has elapsed or until a predetermined distance is traveled, the communication controller 142 determines whether the communicator 112 has received guidance information from the server device 200 (Step S208). [0082] When the communicator 112 has received guidance information from the server device 200, the communication controller 142 causes the HMI 110 to output the guidance information (Step S210). ") 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 Teruyasu to incorporate the teachings of Lei which teaches the controller not outputting the predicted time if the travel time is below a predetermined distance in order to avoid providing information that is not helpful for the user and avoid creating confusion during the travel. Regarding claim 6, Teruyasu discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, however, does not explicitly disclose The navigation apparatus according to claim 1, 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 The navigation apparatus according to claim 1, 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 [0072]; " 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 Teruyasu to incorporate the teachings of Noguchi which teaches extracting the next guidance location after one has been passed in order to continuously provide assistance to the user along the route to allow the user to continue along the route they chose until the final destination location is reached . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Teruyasu (JP 2008134140 A) in view of Tamara (US 20090005969 A1), Nogushi (US 12172671 B2), Nishibashi (US 20150142304 A1), Kato (US 6101443 A), Uno (US 20160223337 A1), Tadanori (JP 5292941 B2) and Lei (US 20200231179 A1) in further view of Wang (US 11143522 B2) . Regarding claim 3, Teruyasu discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, however, does not explicitly disclose The navigation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: evaluate accuracy of the predicted time; and determine whether to output the predicted time based on the accuracy. However, Wang teaches The navigation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: evaluate accuracy of the predicted time; and (see at least [9]; "The quality evaluation parameter indicates a prediction accuracy of the travel time calculation model.") determine whether to output the predicted time based on the accuracy. (see at least [66. 96]; " A travel time calculation model whose verification result is that prediction precision has met a preset precision requirement can be used for predicting a travel time of a target travel route. In this embodiment of this application, the model is verified by using the verification sample. This helps improving the prediction precision and stability of the model, so that accuracy of the estimated travel time of the target travel route is increased….Similarly, the input and output controller 410 further provides output to a display screen, a printer, or other types of output device.") 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 Teruyasu to incorporate teachings of Wang which evaluating the accuracy of the predicted time and determining whether to output the predicted time based on the accuracy to ensure the vehicle and/or user arrive at the communicated time according to the navigation device in order to plan accordingly and not cause excessive wait times should the user arrive too early or late to their destination. Regarding claim 4, Teruyasu discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, however, does not disclose The navigation apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to: estimate an error rate of the predicted time as the accuracy; and output the predicted time when the error rate is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold. However, Wang teaches The navigation apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to: estimate an error rate of the predicted time as the accuracy; and (see at least [10]; "the calculating the quality evaluation parameter includes, for each of the plurality of the verification samples, calculating an error rate based on the respective actual travel time and the respective estimated travel time of the respective verification sample.") output the predicted time when the error rate is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold. (see at least [66. 96]; " A travel time calculation model whose verification result is that prediction precision has met a preset precision requirement can be used for predicting a travel time of a target travel route. In this embodiment of this application, the model is verified by using the verification sample. This helps improving the prediction precision and stability of the model, so that accuracy of the estimated travel time of the target travel route is increased….Similarly, the input and output controller 410 further provides output to a display screen, a printer, or other types of output device.") 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 Teruyasu to incorporate teachings of Wang which evaluating the accuracy of the predicted time and determining whether to output the predicted time based on the accuracy to ensure the vehicle and/or user arrive at the communicated time according to the navigation device in order to plan accordingly and not cause excessive wait times should the user arrive too early or late to their destination. Regarding claim 5, Teruyasu discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, however, does not disclose Thenavigation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a communication module comprising a processor configured to acquire traffic 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. However, Noguchi teaches The navigation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a communication module comprising a processor configured to acquire traffic information, (see at least [0045, 0049]; " As illustrated in FIG. 1, the processor 210 may include the driving entity determination unit 211, the own-vehicle position determination unit 212, and the route guidance control unit 213….The control information may include, for example, the information about stopping and restarting of the display of the route set by the vehicle navigation unit 100, stopping and restarting of the guidance on the route with sounds, stopping and restarting of the guidance on the route with characters, stopping and restarting of the indication of a traveling direction, stopping and restarting of the provision of the road information, such as traffic congestion information, on the route.") 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 Teruyasu to incorporate the teachings of Noguchi which teaches a navigation apparatus comprising a communication module with a processor configured to acquire traffic information in order to provide updates to the user on what type of conditions to expect as well as an accurate predicted travel time. Teruyasu and Noguchi, in combination, do not explicitly disclose 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. However, Wang teaches 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 [006]; " The estimated travel time of the target travel route is calculated by processing circuitry of the apparatus according to the obtained road traffic information and historical travel data. The historical travel data includes a plurality of historical travel routes, respective road traffic information for each of the plurality of historical travel routes, and a respective actual travel time of each of the plurality of historical travel routes.") 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 Teruyasu to incorporate teachings of Wang which teaches estimating the predicted time according to traffic information in order to plan accordingly and not cause excessive wait times should the user arrive too early or late to their destination. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 2 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 3 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 4 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 5 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 6 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 7 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 8 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 9 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 10 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 11 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 12 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 13 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 14 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 15 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 16 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 17 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 18 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 19 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 20 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 21 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 22 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/900,886 Page 23 Art Unit: 3664
Prosecution Insights