DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s response to election/restriction filed on June 10, 2026.
Applicant had elected, without traverse, invention I (claims 1-7 and 12-20). The requirement is made FINAL.
Claims 8-11 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the typographical error with the term “routs” Appropriate correction is required. Under compact prosecution, the above term is examined as “routes.”
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.
Claim 1-7 and 12-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to statutory ineligible subject matter of determining permission of reception of a vehicle within a platoon based on mental steps.
Claim 1, A route search method, comprising:
determining, by a computing device, a user preferred route for a destination proximity area based on information about a plurality of actual driving routes used by a user to reach a destination and a number of times that each actual driving route among the plurality of actual driving routes has been used; and
providing, by the computing device, a recommended route comprising the user preferred route in response to an input of the destination, wherein the destination proximity area is an area within a preset radius from the destination.
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes – the claim recited a method including at least one step.
Step 2A: Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claim(s) is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim 1 recited the limitation of “determining, …, a user preferred route for a destination proximity area based on information about a plurality of actual driving routes used by a user to reach a destination and a number of times that each actual driving route among the plurality of actual driving routes has been used.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computing device. That is, other than reciting “computing device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the limitation(s) / step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, an operator at a remote location determines, using pen and paper, a route trajectory for a driver (A) based on history and frequent route trajectories taken by the driver to a destination. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Hence, the claim recites mental processes and is not eligible.
Step 2A: Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
Claim(s) is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception 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”).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the flowing additional element(s): “ providing … a recommended route comprising the user preferred route in response to an input of the destination, wherein the destination proximity area is an area within a preset radius from the destination.”
The providing limitation(s) / step(s) is recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a general means for output information related to determined user preferred route) and amount to mere data output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The “computing device” that facilities the determining limitation(s) / step(s) is a general recited processor that “apply” the otherwise mental perform step using a generic or general-purpose computer and is recited at a high level of generality to merely automate the mental steps as indicated above.
The combination of these additional element(s) is also no more than mere instruction to gather data and apply an exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on the practicing of the abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Invention Concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B.
Here, the providing step(s) / limitation(s) was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the claim recites additional element that amount to significant more than the judicial exception. Per MPEP 2106.05(g), mere output data is deemed to be directed to insignificant extra solution activity. This step(s) / limitation(s) does not contain any improvement for the route search technology.
The “computing device” (e.g., generic computer) to perform insignificant extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that said “computing device” is anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection / receipt of data (e.g., processing stored / available data to apply the otherwise mental determination) over a processor to obtain a result is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2, the additional element “obtaining data about the plurality of actual driving routes used by the user ….” is evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A. Here, the obtaining limitation(s) / step(s) is recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a general means for gathering information related to history and frequent trajectories taken by the driver to a destination) for using in the determining limitations / steps and amount to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity – per MPEP 2106.05(g). This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on the practicing of the abstract idea.
The claim does not recite any additional element that amount to significant more that the judicial exception since the specification discloses a generic computer component – (Step 2B). Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claim 3, the additional element “…generating, as the user preferred route, an actual driving route, among the plurality of actual driving routs, that has been used at least a preset reference number of times” is evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A and it is directed to mental process. For instance, the operator at the remote location generates, using pen and paper, a previous route trajectory taken by the driver from the history and frequent route trajectories taken by the driver to a destination. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The claim does not recite any additional element that integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 1 of 2A) neither amount to significant more that the judicial exception since the specification discloses a generic computer component – (Step 2B). Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claim 4, the additional element “generating, as the user preferred route, an actual driving route, among the plurality of actual driving routes used by the user, for which at least a preset reference number of search requests have been made” is evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A and it is directed to mental process. For instance, the operator at a remote location determines, using pen and paper, the route trajectory for a driver based on history and frequent route trajectories taken by the driver to a destination and search information. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The additional element “… obtaining information about a number of search requests made by the user for each actual driving route among the plurality of actual driving routes used by the user” is evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A. Here, the obtaining limitation(s) / step(s) is recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a general means for gathering information related to search information about history route trajectory(ies) by the driver) for using in the determining limitations / steps and amount to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity – per MPEP 2106.05(g). This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on the practicing of the abstract idea.
The claim does not recite any additional element that amount to significant more that the judicial exception since the specification discloses a generic computer component – (Step 2B). Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claim 5, the additional limitation “generating, as the user preferred route, an actual driving route, among the plurality of actual driving routes used by the user, that requires a minimum time to reach the destination by using the driving ratio and required time of each of the roads” is evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A and it is directed to mental process. For instance, the operator at a remote location determines, using pen and paper, the route trajectory for a driver based on history and frequent route trajectories taken by the driver to a destination and minimum traveling time to reach the destination based on routes characteristic / parameter. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The additional limitation “obtaining information about a driving ratio and required time of each of a plurality of roads traveled to reach the destination” is evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A. Here, the obtaining limitation(s) / step(s) is recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a general means for gathering information related to driving ratio and required time for each of the history and frequent trajectories taken by the driver to a destination) for using in the determining limitations / steps and amount to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity – per MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not recite any additional element that integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 1 of 2A) neither amount to significant more that the judicial exception since the specification discloses a generic computer component – (Step 2B). Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claim 6, the additional limitations (i) “dividing data about the plurality of actual driving routes used by the user into weekday/weekend data and peak/off-peak data according to driving time” and (ii) “generating the user preferred route for each driving time by using the data divided according to the driving time” are evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A and they are directed to mental processes. For instance, the operator at a remote location, using pen and paper, (i) divides information related to the route trajectories taken by the driver into weekday / weekend data and peak / off peak data according to driving time and (ii) determines the route trajectory for a driver based divided information related to the route trajectories taken by the driver and driving time. Thus, these step limitations recite a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The claim does not recite any additional element that integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 1 of 2A) neither amount to significant more that the judicial exception since the specification discloses a generic computer component – (Step 2B). Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claim 7, the additional elements (i) “providing the recommended route at a starting point” and (ii) “providing a route with a faster expected arrival time among the recommended route and a plurality of route search results for the destination in response to entering within a preset distance from the destination” are evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A. The providing limitation(s) / step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a general means of output the determined route trajectory for a driver and a route with a faster expected arrival time amount other routes) and amount to mere data output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim does not recite any additional element that integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 1 of 2A) neither amount to significant more that the judicial exception since the specification discloses a generic computer component – (Step 2B). Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim XXXX
Claim 12, A computing device comprising:
one or more processors;
a communication interface configured to communicate with an external device; and
a memory configured to store a computer program to be executed by the on one or more processors, wherein the computer program comprises instructions for performing operations, including:
determining a user preferred route for a destination proximity area based on information about a plurality of actual driving routes used by a user to reach a destination and a number of times that each actual driving route, among the plurality of actual driving routes used by the user, has been used; and
providing a recommended route comprising the user preferred route in response to an input of the destination, wherein the destination proximity area is an area within a preset radius from the destination.
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes – the claim recited a method including at least one step.
Step 2A: Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claim(s) is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim 12 recited the limitation of “determining, …, a user preferred route for a destination proximity area based on information about a plurality of actual driving routes used by a user to reach a destination and a number of times that each actual driving route among the plurality of actual driving routes has been used.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computing device. That is, other than reciting “processors,” “communication interface” “external device” and “memory,” nothing in the claim element precludes the limitation(s) / step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, an operator at a remote location determines, using pen and paper, a route trajectory for a driver (A) based on history and frequent route trajectories taken by the driver to a destination. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Hence, the claim recites mental processes and is not eligible.
Step 2A: Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
Claim(s) is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception 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”).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the flowing additional element(s): “ providing … a recommended route comprising the user preferred route in response to an input of the destination, wherein the destination proximity area is an area within a preset radius from the destination.”
The providing limitation(s) / step(s) is recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a general means for output information related to determined user preferred route) and amount to mere data output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The “processor” that facilities the determining limitation(s) / step(s) is a general recited processor that “apply” the otherwise mental perform step using a generic or general-purpose computer and is recited at a high level of generality to merely automate the mental steps as indicated above.
The “communication interface” is recited as a general computer element for performing insignificant extra solution activity to exchange communication signal with a generic computer component (e.g., generic processor / server).
The “external device” is recited as a general computer element for performing insignificant extra solution activity to exchange communication signal with a generic computer component (e.g., generic computer interface).
The “memory” is recited as a general computer element for performing insignificant extra solution activity to store instruction(s) to be executed by a generic computer component (e.g., generic processor).
The combination of these additional element(s) is also no more than mere instruction to gather data and apply an exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on the practicing of the abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Invention Concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B.
Here, the providing step(s) / limitation(s) was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the claim recites additional element that amount to significant more than the judicial exception. Per MPEP 2106.05(g), mere output data is deemed to be directed to insignificant extra solution activity. This step(s) / limitation(s) does not contain any improvement for the route search technology.
The “processors,” “communication interface” “external device” and “memory”
(e.g., generic computer components) to perform insignificant extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that said “processors,” “communication interface” “external device” and “memory” are anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection / receipt of data (e.g., processing stored / available data to apply the otherwise mental determination) over a processor to obtain a result is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the additional element “obtaining data about the plurality of actual driving routes used by the user ….” is evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A. Here, the obtaining limitation(s) / step(s) is recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a general means for gathering information related to history and frequent trajectories taken by the driver to a destination) for using in the determining limitations / steps and amount to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity – per MPEP 2106.05(g). This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on the practicing of the abstract idea.
The claim does not recite any additional element that amount to significant more that the judicial exception since the specification discloses a generic computer component – (Step 2B). Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claim 14, the additional element “…generating, as the user preferred route, … an actual driving route, among the plurality of actual driving routes …, that has been used at least a preset reference number of times” is evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A and it is directed to mental process. For instance, the operator at the remote location generates, using pen and paper, a previous route trajectory taken by the driver from the history and frequent route trajectories taken by the driver to a destination. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The claim does not recite any additional element that integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2 of 2A) neither amount to significant more that the judicial exception since the specification discloses a generic computer component – (Step 2B). Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claim 15, the additional element “generating, as the user preferred route, an actual driving route for which a preset reference number of search requests or more have been made among the actual driving routes of the user” is evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A and it is directed to mental process. For instance, the operator at a remote location determines, using pen and paper, the route trajectory for a driver based on history and frequent route trajectories taken by the driver to a destination and search information. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The additional element “… obtaining information about a number of search requests made by the user for each actual driving route” is evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A. Here, the obtaining limitation(s) / step(s) is recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a general means for gathering information related to search information about history route trajectory(ies) by the driver) for using in the determining limitations / steps and amount to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity – per MPEP 2106.05(g). This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on the practicing of the abstract idea.
The claim does not recite any additional element that amount to significant more that the judicial exception since the specification discloses a generic computer component – (Step 2B). Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claim 16, the additional limitation “generating, as the user preferred route, an actual driving route that requires a minimum time to reach the destination among the actual driving routes of the user by using the driving ratio and required time of each of the roads” is evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A and it is directed to mental process. For instance, the operator at a remote location determines, using pen and paper, the route trajectory for a driver based on history and frequent route trajectories taken by the driver to a destination and minimum traveling time to reach the destination based on routes characteristic / parameter. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The additional limitation “obtaining information about a driving ratio and required time of each of a plurality of roads traveled to reach the destination” is evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A. Here, the obtaining limitation(s) / step(s) is recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a general means for gathering information related to driving ratio and required time for each of the history and frequent trajectories taken by the driver to a destination) for using in the determining limitations / steps and amount to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity – per MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not recite any additional element that integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2 of 2A) neither amount to significant more that the judicial exception since the specification discloses a generic computer component – (Step 2B). Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claim 17, the additional limitations (i) “dividing data about the actual driving routes of the user into weekday/weekend data and peak/off-peak data according to driving time” and (ii) “generating the user preferred route for each time by using the data divided according to the driving time” are evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A and they are directed to mental processes. For instance, the operator at a remote location, using pen and paper, (i) divides information related to the route trajectories taken by the driver into weekday / weekend data and peak / off peak data according to driving time and (ii) determines the route trajectory for a driver based divided information related to the route trajectories taken by the driver and driving time. Thus, these step limitations recite a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The claim does not recite any additional element that integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2 of 2A) neither amount to significant more that the judicial exception since the specification discloses a generic computer component – (Step 2B). Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claim 18, the additional elements (i) “providing the recommended route at a starting point” and (ii) “providing a route with a faster expected arrival time among the recommended route and a plurality of route search results for the destination in response to entering within a preset distance from the destination” are evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A. The providing limitation(s) / step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a general means of output the determined route trajectory for a driver and a route with a faster expected arrival time amount other routes) and amount to mere data output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim does not recite any additional element that integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2 of 2A) neither amount to significant more that the judicial exception since the specification discloses a generic computer component – (Step 2B). Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claim 19, the additional elements “determining the user preferred route of the user for the destination proximity area based on information about actual driving routes used by a first driver cluster to reach the destination …” is evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A and it is directed to mental process. For instance, the operator at the remote location determines, using pen and paper, a route trajectory for a driver (A) to a destination area based on a first list of drivers’ array information to reach the destination and the history and frequent route trajectories taken by the first list of drivers. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The claim does not recite any additional element that integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2 of 2A) neither amount to significant more that the judicial exception since the specification discloses a generic computer component – (Step 2B). Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claim 20, the additional elements (i) “generating a plurality of driver clusters with different driving tendencies by performing clustering using data about actual driving routes used by a plurality of drivers to reach the destination,” (ii) “… determining the first driver cluster with a similar driving tendency to the user among the driver clusters based on an analysis of the plurality of actual driving routes used by the user,” and (iii) “generating the user preferred route of the user for the destination proximity area based on actual driving routes of drivers which have been used at least a preset reference number of times among a plurality of actual driving routes used by drivers belonging to the first driver cluster to reach the destination” are evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A.
The “generating” limitation is directed to mental process. For instance, the operator at the remote location generates, using pen and paper, a list of drivers’ array having different driving characteristic on a history and frequent route trajectories taken by the drivers. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The “determining” limitation is directed to mental process. For instance, the operator at the remote location determines, using pen and paper, a first list of driver array having similar driving characteristic to a driver (A) based on an analysis of the history and frequent route trajectories taken by the driver (A). Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The “generating” limitation is directed to mental process. For instance, the operator at the remote location generates, using pen and paper, the route trajectory for a driver (A) to a destination based determined first list of driver array having similar driving characteristic to a driver (A) to reach the destination. Thus, this step limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The claim does not recite any additional element that integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2 of 2A) neither amount to significant more that the judicial exception since the specification discloses a generic computer component – (Step 2B). Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 12-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grochocki, jr. et al. (Pub. No.: 2020/0217682 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Grochocki, jr. et al. disclose a method for generating personalized routes with user routes preferences, comprising:
determining, by a computing device, a user preferred route for a destination proximity area based on information about a plurality of actual driving routes used by a user to reach a destination (e.g., generating personalized route(s) 102 to an ending location 112 (par. 23, 25, 31, 34 and Figures 3A and 3B) based on frequent routes traveled between starting and ending locations (par. 40) ) and a number of times that each actual driving route among the plurality of actual driving routes has been used (e.g., determining frequent routes traveled by a vehicle’s navigation device 104 (par. 40), which covers information about a number of times each frequent routes had been used); and
providing, by the computing device, a recommended route comprising the user preferred route in response to an input of the destination (e.g., output one or more personalized routes 102 via output device 128 (par. 35) based on ending location input by a user (par. 32)), wherein the destination proximity area is an area within a preset radius from the destination (e.g., Figures 3B and 4B show a map area with an ending location 112 having a preset radius (par. 34, 46 and Figures 3B and 4B)).
Regarding claim 2, Grochocki, jr. et al. disclose a method for generating personalized routes, wherein determining the user preferred route includes obtaining data about the plurality of actual driving routes used by the user collected during a preset period of time before the input of the destination and data about the number of times that each actual driving route has been used (e.g., wherein the frequent routes traveled between locations (par. 40) used to generate personalized route(s) 102 (par. 23, 25, 31, 34 and Figures 3A and 3B) covers information related to the time and frequency of travel of the routes).
Regarding claim 3, Grochocki, jr. et al. disclose a method for generating personalized routes, wherein determining the user preferred route includes generating, as the user preferred route, an actual driving route, among the plurality of actual driving routs, that has been used at least a preset reference number of times (e.g., generating personalized route(s) 102 to an ending location 112 (par. 23, 25, 31, 34 and Figures 3A and 3B) based on frequent routes traveled between starting and ending locations (par. 40), which covers information related to the time and frequency of travel of the routes).
Regarding claim 4, Grochocki, jr. et al. disclose a method for generating personalized routes, wherein determining the user preferred route includes:
obtaining information about a number of search requests made by the user for each actual driving route among the plurality of actual driving routes used by the user (e.g., current search results related to routes to a destination (par. 32)); and generating, as the user preferred route, an actual driving route, among the plurality of actual driving routes used by the user, for which at least a preset reference number of search requests have been made (e.g., generating personalized route(s) 102 to an ending location 112 (par. 23, 25, 31, 34 and Figures 3A and 3B) based on frequent routes traveled between starting and ending locations (par. 40) and search results (par. 32 )).
Claim 7, Grochocki, jr. et al. disclose a method for generating personalized routes, wherein providing the recommended route comprising the user preferred route in response to the input of the destination includes:
providing the recommended route at a starting point (e.g., output one or more personalized routes 102 via output device 128 (par. 35) at a start location 110 – par. 31); and
providing a route with a faster expected arrival time among the recommended route and a plurality of route search results for the destination in response to entering within a preset distance from the destination (e.g., providing a faster first route 106a to a destination amount other route search to a user for selection – par. 81-82 and Figures 10).
Regarding claim 12, Grochocki, jr. et al. disclose an apparatus for generating personalized routes comprising:
one or more processors (e.g., a navigation device 104 comprising a processor 122 – par. 23 and Figure 1 );
a communication interface configured to communicate with an external device (e.g., a navigation device 104 / processor 122 in communication with server 105 via communication device 126 – par. 23 ); and
a memory (e.g., a storage device 1006 – par. 119-120 ) configured to store a computer program to be executed by the on one or more processors (e.g. storage device 1006 configured to store instructions executable by the processor – par. 119-120 and 123 ),
wherein the computer program comprises instructions for performing operations (e.g., wherein the stored instructions executable by the processor performing), including:
determining a user preferred route for a destination proximity area based on information about a plurality of actual driving routes used by a user to reach a destination (e.g., generating personalized route(s) 102 to an ending location 112 (par. 23, 25, 31, 34 and Figures 3A and 3B) based on frequent routes traveled between starting and ending locations (par. 40)) and a number of times that each actual driving route, among the plurality of actual driving routes used by the user, has been used (e.g., determining frequent routes traveled by a vehicle’s navigation device 104 (par. 40), which covers information about a number of times each frequent routes had been used); and
providing a recommended route comprising the user preferred route in response to an input of the destination (e.g., output one or more personalized routes 102 via output device 128 (par. 35) based on ending location input by a user (par. 32)), wherein the destination proximity area is an area within a preset radius from the destination (e.g., Figures 3B and 4B show a map area with an ending location 112 having a preset radius (par. 34, 46 and Figures 3B and 4B)).
Regarding claim 13, Grochocki, jr. et al. disclose an apparatus wherein determining the user preferred route includes obtaining data about the plurality of actual driving routes of the user collected during a preset period of time before the input of the destination and data about a number of times that each actual driving route, among the plurality of actual driving routes, has been used (e.g., wherein the frequent routes traveled between locations (par. 40) used to generate personalized route(s) 102 (par. 23, 25, 31, 34 and Figures 3A and 3B) covers information related to the time and frequency of travel of the routes).
Regarding 14, Grochocki, jr. et al. disclose an apparatus, wherein determining the user preferred route includes generating, as the user preferred route, an actual driving route, among the plurality of actual driving routes used by the user, that has been used at least a preset reference number of times (e.g., generating personalized route(s) 102 to an ending location 112 (par. 23, 25, 31, 34 and Figures 3A and 3B) based on frequent routes traveled between starting and ending locations (par. 40), which covers information related to the time and frequency of travel of the routes).
Regarding 15, Grochocki, jr. et al. disclose an apparatus, wherein determining the user preferred route includes: obtaining information about the number of search requests made by the user for each of the actual driving routes (e.g., current search results related to routes to a destination (par. 32 )); and generating, as the user preferred route, an actual driving route for which a preset reference number of search requests or more have been made among the actual driving routes of the user (e.g., generating personalized route(s) 102 to an ending location 112 (par. 23, 25, 31, 34 and Figures 3A and 3B) based on frequent routes traveled between starting and ending locations (par. 40) and search results (par. 32 )).
Regarding 18, Grochocki, jr. et al. disclose an apparatus, wherein providing the recommended route comprising the user preferred route in response to the input of the destination includes: providing the recommended route at a starting point (e.g., output one or more personalized routes 102 via output device 128 (par. 35) at a start location 110 – par. 31); and providing a route with a faster expected arrival time among the recommended route and a plurality of route search results for the destination in response to entering within a preset distance from the destination (e.g., providing a faster first route 106a to a destination amount other route search to a user for selection – par. 81-82 and Figures 10).
Conclusion
Lee et al. (US 20060100778 A1) is directed to navigation device and method using multi-route to calculate ultimate route to a destination.
Crook (US 2006/0036363 A1) is directed to automated vehicle route to determine a route to a destination based on the frequency of use of the route.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Khoi H. Tran can be reached at 571 272 6919. 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.
/Jorge O Peche/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights