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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/7/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 7 - 10 in the reply filed on 6/9/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that "[i]t is believed that multiple groups can be searched and examined together without undue burden. Additionally, considerable time and expense will be saved if all claims can be considered at this time, rather than pursuing multiple divisional applications". This is not found persuasive because the reply fails to identify why the groups are believed to be searched and examined together without undue burden. The claims not elected, as set forth in the requirement for restriction/election, appear to be independent and distinct from Invention II as elected, as Invention I appears to be directed to a data server for providing congestion information, while Invention II is directed to the use of congestion information. Further, Invention III appears to be directed to a different guidance system, including additional factors such as the determination of “whether to enter an information request area for an access road.” While Invention III is more similar in scope to Invention II than Invention I, they materially differ from one another in a manner that would provide undue burden on examination, as they raise different considerations in both the Independent claim(s) themselves, and the corresponding dependent claims, which also differ in scope.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 7 is directed to navigation device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 7 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 7 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 7 recites:
A navigation terminal for providing congestion information based on a vehicle connectivity environment, the navigation terminal comprising:
a data transceiver configured to request and receive congestion information including a congested area with respect to an access road from a data server when entering an information request area for the access road;
a guidance control module configured to determine whether a length of the congested area with respect to the access road is less than a length of a guidance area and
control an output of access road guidance information at different points according to the length of the congested area, based on a determination result of the guidance control module; and
a guidance information output module configured to output guidance information regarding the access road according to control of the guidance control module.
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, “determine…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement as to the amount of congestion in terms of congestion length compared to the length of a guidance area. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A navigation terminal for providing congestion information based on a vehicle connectivity environment, the navigation terminal comprising: [generic linking to technical field, 2106.05(h), Apply it, 2106.05(f)]
a data transceiver configured to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)] request and receive congestion information including a congested area with respect to an access road from a data server when entering an information request area for the access road; [pre-solution activity (data gathering) 2106.05(g)]
a guidance control module configured to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)] determine whether a length of the congested area with respect to the access road is less than a length of a guidance area and
control an output of access road guidance information at different points according to the length of the congested area, based on a determination result of the guidance control module; and[insignificant post-solution activity (outputting results of the mental process) 2106.05(g)]
a guidance information output module configured to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)] output guidance information regarding the access road according to control of the guidance control module. [insignificant post-solution activity (outputting results of the mental process) 2106.05(g)]
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 data transceiver…,” “request and receive…,” “a guidance control module…,” “control an output …,” “a guidance information output module…,” and “output guidance information…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the “request and receive…” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering traffic data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “control an output…” and “output guidance information…” steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting guidance information at a determined time), and amounts to mere post solution output of information, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “data transceiver…,” “guidance control module…,” and “guidance information output module…” are each recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer or interface components well known in the art) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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. see 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 Revised Guidance, 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 computing elements to perform the steps fo the asserted mental process amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “request and receive…,” “control an output …,” and “output guidance information…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Dependent claim(s) 8 – 10 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 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically:
Claim 8 recites specific outputs of the guidance control module based on the comparison of the congested area and guidance area length, each of which under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim merely encompasses a simple judgement and corresponding output, with instructions to apply the exception using generic computing elements and output devices as set forth above with respect to Independent Claim 7.
Claim 9 recites wherein the data transceiver includes memory configured to store traffic information received from a data server, which merely recites instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 10 recites a vehicle incorporating the navigation device, which merely encompasses instructions to apply the system in a generic embodiment, and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, dependent claims 8 – 10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claim 7.
Therefore, claim(s) 7 – 10 is/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.
Claim(s) 7 - 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (JP 2009025235 A) in view of Jardine (US 2022/0135039 A1).
Regarding Claim 7:
Takahashi discloses: A navigation terminal for providing congestion information based on a vehicle connectivity environment, the navigation terminal comprising: (Takahashi discloses in at least Paragraph 0009 & 0010 a navigation apparatus [i.e. a navigation terminal] configured to output guidance for a user through auditory or display means as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0122 [i.e. providing congestion information based on a vehicle connectivity environment])
a data transceiver configured to request and receive congestion information including a congested area with respect to an access road from a data server… (Takahashi discloses in at least Paragraph 0020, 0026, & 0032, a traffic information receiving device [i.e. a data transceiver] that is configured to receive traffic information from an external traffic information center by wireless communication, the traffic information being obtained from probe cars and relating to various inflow links for roads the vehicle is to traverse [i.e. request and receive congestion information including a congested area with respect to an access road from a data server])
a guidance control module configured to determine whether a length of the congested area with respect to the access road is less than a length of a guidance area and (Takahashi discloses in at least Paragraphs 0065 & 0066 wherein the length of a right or left turn traffic jam is estimated, and is compared to the link length of the inflow link as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0077. In the event that the traffic jam extends over the entire link region [i.e. is less than or greater than a guidance area] the continuity of the traffic jam across links of the road is determined, as well as the endpoint of the traffic jam as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0078, 0093, & 0109 of Takahashi)
control an output of access road guidance information at different points according to the length of the congested area, based on a determination result of the guidance control module; and (Takahashi discloses in at least Paragraph 0122 wherein based on a determined length of the traffic congestion, the instructions for guiding a user to change lanes may be output at different points, including specified distances from the current position of the vehicle to the rear end of the traffic jam [i.e. control an output of access road guidance information at different points according to the length of the congested area])
a guidance information output module configured to output guidance information regarding the access road according to control of the guidance control module. (Takahashi discloses in at least Paragraphs 0030, 0031, & 0122 wherein a message may be displayed on a display, as well as through a voice guide output device [i.e. a guidance information output module], for providing a user with guidance information to change lanes according to a distance from the current position of the vehicle to the end of a traffic jam prior to the vehicle making a turn [i.e. output guidance information regarding the access road according to control of the guidance control module])
Takahashi however appears to be silent regarding:
Requesting and receiving traffic information when entering an information request area for the access road;
However Jardine teaches wherein dynamic traffic data may be scheduled to be downloaded based on the vehicle reaching specific locations.
Requesting and receiving traffic information when entering an information request area for the access road; (However Jardine teaches in at least Paragraphs 0034 – 0036 wherein a control system for a host vehicle may initiate a dynamic traffic data download [i.e. requesting and receiving traffic information] when the vehicle reaches a predetermined location [i.e. when entering an information request area for the access road], the dynamic traffic data download taking place over a cellular network and including data such as traffic queues as taught in at least Paragraphs 0280 & 0283)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Takahashi by incorporating the downloading of traffic information when reaching a specified location as taught by Jardine.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Jardine in at least Paragraphs 0033 & 0035, the vehicle may download traffic data at points where connectivity is not inhibited, improving the download of real-time traffic data by ensuring fewer failed download attempts.
Regarding Claim 8:
The navigation terminal of claim 7, wherein the guidance control module includes: a comparison module configured to compare the length of the congested area with respect to the access road and the length of the guidance area; and a control module configured to control an output of first access road guidance information when entering the guidance area when the length of the congested area is less than the length of the guidance area as a result of the comparing, and control an output of second access road guidance information at a point of entry into a new guidance area determined using the length of the congested area and the length of the guidance area when the length of the congested area is greater than or equal to the length of the guidance area, wherein the control module is configured to control the output of the second access road guidance information at the point of entry into the new guidance area determined by adding the length of the congested area to the length of the guidance area when the length of the congested area is greater than or equal to the length of the guidance area.
Takahashi discloses in at least Paragraphs 0065 & 0066 wherein the length of a right or left turn traffic jam is estimated, and is compared to the link length of the inflow link as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0077 [i.e. a comparison module configured to compare the length of the congested area with respect to the access road and the length of the guidance area]. In the event that the traffic jam extends over the entire link region [i.e. is less than or greater than a guidance area] the continuity of the traffic jam across links of the road is determined, as well as the endpoint of the traffic jam as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0078, 0093, & 0109 of Takahashi, with Takahashi disclosing in at least Paragraph 0122 wherein based on a determined length of the traffic congestion, the instructions for guiding a user to change lanes may be output at different points, including specified distances from the current position of the vehicle to the rear end of the traffic jam [i.e. control an output of second access road guidance information at a point of entry into a new guidance area determined using the length of the congested area and the length of the guidance area when the length of the congested area is greater than or equal to the length of the guidance area control the output of the second access road guidance information at the point of entry into the new guidance area determined by adding the length of the congested area to the length of the guidance area when the length of the congested area is greater than or equal to the length of the guidance area]. In the event that the traffic congestion does not extend to the entire link area, the “end link” of congestion is recorded as zero, and the guidance information is output accordingly at the ordinary position without traffic jam induced extension as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0077, 0080, & 0122 of Takahashi [i.e. control an output of first access road guidance information when entering the guidance area when the length of the congested area is less than the length of the guidance area as a result of the comparing].
Regarding Claim 9:
The navigation terminal of claim 7, wherein the data transceiver further includes a memory configured to update congestion information on a corresponding access road when the congestion information including the congested area is transmitted from the data server.
Takahashi discloses in at least Paragraphs 0019, 0020, & 0023 wherein the navigation apparatus may include a data storage device [i.e. a memory] capable of storing traffic information received from the traffic information receiving device, which as set forth above may receive information from a traffic information center wirelessly as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0026 & 0032 [i.e. update congestion information on a corresponding access road when the congestion information including the congested area is transmitted from the data server].
Regarding Claim 10:
A vehicle comprising the navigation terminal of claim 7.
Takahashi discloses in at least Paragraph 0019 wherein the navigation device may be incorporated into a vehicle [i.e. a vehicle comprises the navigation terminal].
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Yao (CN 115862329 A): Yao recites a collaborative lane change guidance method for vehicles, including the response to traffic accident information received. Traffic flow conditions may be collected and transmitted in real-time, and a lane change guidance strategy may be adapted based on the received information.
Hu (CN 114822053 A): Hu recites a system for providing driving guidance to a vehicle operator based on lane-level speed data, and setting specified guidance areas for the vehicle. Guidance may be provided based on a determination of if the vehicle needs to turn left or right at the intersection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights