DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should avoid using phrases which can be applied such as “… are described”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 30 and 31, “FIG. 11” should read “FIG. 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, lines 5 and 7, “stating time” should read “starting time”.
In claim 9, line 3, “apast” should read “a past”.
In claim 16, lines 5 and 7, “stating time” should read “starting time”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is 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)
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 1 is directed to a method of determining a route (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, 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 1 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 1 recites:
A stopover recommendation method performed by a computing device, the method comprising:
obtaining a traffic information about a first route toward a destination inputted by a user;
calculating a driving time zone for which a mobility apparatus of the user will drive along the first route based on the traffic information [mental process/step];
determining whether a current time is included in the driving time zone [mental process/step];
recommending a stopover based on a user information about the user and the driving time zone when the current time is not included in the driving time zone [mental process/step];
displaying a detailed information on the stopover; and
determining a second route including the stopover as a final route in response to an approval of the user on the stopover [mental process/step].
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, “calculating…,” “determining…,” and “recommending…” 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, 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 stopover recommendation method performed by a computing device [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], the method comprising:
obtaining a traffic information about a first route toward a destination inputted by a user [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
calculating a driving time zone for which a mobility apparatus of the user will drive along the first route based on the traffic information;
determining whether a current time is included in the driving time zone;
recommending a stopover based on a user information about the user and the driving time zone when the current time is not included in the driving time zone;
displaying a detailed information on the stopover [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results of the mental process)]; and
determining a second route including the stopover as a final route in response to an approval of the user on the stopover.
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 “obtaining a traffic information…”and “displaying…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (computing device) to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining traffic information step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering surrounding traffic data for use in the evaluating steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the recommended stopover result from the determining and recommending steps), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “computing device” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining alternate routes with stops to avoid traffic) 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 a computing device to perform the “calculating…,” “determining…,” and “recommending…” 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, regarding the additional limitations of “obtaining a traffic information…”and “displaying…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Additional Claims
Independent claim 11 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 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 such as controlling the vehicle to travel along the final route. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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)(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, 3-6, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Quint et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0383628; hereinafter Quint).
Regarding claim 1, Quint teaches a stopover recommendation method performed by a computing device (Quint: Par. 34; i.e., the planning can include providing a user of the vehicle with recommended stops along a route to the destination),
the method comprising: obtaining a traffic information about a first route toward a destination inputted by a user (Quint: Par. 45; i.e., upcoming traffic conditions along the route (e.g., traffic building ahead)… are all examples of the types of environmental factors that could be sent to the controller module 22 via the receiver; Par. 64; i.e., the user could input a destination to the controller module);
calculating a driving time zone for which a mobility apparatus of the user will drive along the first route based on the traffic information; determining whether a current time is included in the driving time zone; recommending a stopover based on a user information about the user and the driving time zone when the current time is not included in the driving time zone (Quint: Par. 107-108; i.e., step 512, which assesses whether the electrified vehicle 10 is headed into a traffic delay or whether the electrified vehicle 10 is in a traffic delay… the method 500 moves to a step 520, which assesses nearby food locations… The assessment in the step 520 can be based on the predicted duration of the traffic delay to identify proposed food locations, such as restaurants, that would allow a user of the electrified vehicle 10 to detour from their current route and eat while the traffic delay clears; the system determines the driving time zone to be after the traffic delay dissipates, and if the current time is not a good time to continue, then a stopover is recommended to wait for the traffic delay to pass);
displaying a detailed information on the stopover (Quint: Par. 109; i.e., the stops are displayed to the user at a step 528 and the user is prompted to make a selection or to cancel the display);
and determining a second route including the stopover as a final route in response to an approval of the user on the stopover (Quint: Par. 110; i.e., if the user selects one of the stops in the step 532, the method 500 can then move to a step 536, which calculates a route to the selected stop and presents the route to the user).
Regarding claim 3, Quint teaches the method according to claim 1. Quint further teaches wherein the driving time zone for which the mobility apparatus of the user will drive along the first route is determined such that when the mobility apparatus of the user drives along the first route for the driving time zone, a time required to reach the destination is expected to be the shortest (Quint: Par. 116; i.e., if the electrified vehicle 10 is not in, or headed for, a traffic delay at the step 512, the method 500 moves to the stop step 526; it is inherent that if the current route does not include a traffic delay then the time required to reach the destination would be shortest).
Regarding claim 4, Quint teaches the method according to claim 1. Quint further teaches wherein the user information is extracted from a usage history of each of the computing device and a user device of the user, and the user information includes a schedule information of the user, a contents viewing history of the user, a past destination setting history of the user, or whether the user visits a specific location on a regular basis (Quint: Par. 151; i.e., the smart recommendations could, in some examples, additionally take into account one or more of an identity of the user, … other occupants in the vehicle, travel plans of the other occupants... The smart recommendations could pull the travel plan information by linking to digital calendars associated with the other occupants).
Regarding claim 5, Quint teaches the method according to claim 1. Quint further teaches wherein the stopover is a first stopover (Quint: Par. 110; i.e., the method 500 moves to a step 532 where the user can select a stop from the listing of at least one stops; the at least one stop is the first recommended stopover),
and wherein the stopover recommendation method further comprises: determining the first route as the final route when the current time is included in the driving time zone (Quint: Par. 116; i.e., if the electrified vehicle 10 is not in, or headed for, a traffic delay at the step 512, the method 500 moves to the stop step 526; if the current time is during the window when a traffic delay does not occur, then the current route is the final route);
and recommending a second stopover different from the first stopover in response to the user not approving the first stopover (Quint: Par. 113; i.e., if not approved, the method 500 can move to a step 548, which displays a list of amenities with, for example, checkboxes identifying which amenities are present at the at least one stop. At a step 552, the user can utilize the checkboxes or another input mechanism to identify which amenities are desired for the at least one stop. The method 500 then moves to a step 558 where the user can command the method 500 to search again for at least one stop based on the identified amenities from the step 552; after the method is repeated, another stopover is recommended).
Regarding claim 6, Quint teaches the method according to claim 1. Quint further teaches wherein the recommending of the stopover further includes: obtaining a schedule information about the user from a user device of the user; checking whether there is a schedule starting at a timing between the current time and a stating time of the driving time zone; and recommending a location corresponding to the schedule as the stopover when there is the schedule starting at the timing between the current time and the stating time of the driving time zone (Quint: Par. 151; i.e., the smart recommendations could, in some examples, additionally take into account one or more of an identity of the user, … other occupants in the vehicle, travel plans of the other occupants... The smart recommendations could pull the travel plan information by linking to digital calendars associated with the other occupants).
Regarding claim 11, Quint teaches a computing device comprising: a processor; and a memory connected to the process and configured to store therein instructions, wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor (Quint: Par. 43; i.e., The processor of the controller module 22 can be programmed to execute a program stored in the memory portion… The program can be stored in such the memory portion as software code. The programs can include one or more additional or separate programs, each of which includes an ordered list of executable instructions for implementing logical functions associated with the electrified vehicle),
the instructions cause the processor to perform: obtaining a traffic information about a first route toward a destination inputted by a user (Quint: Par. 45; i.e., upcoming traffic conditions along the route (e.g., traffic building ahead)… are all examples of the types of environmental factors that could be sent to the controller module 22 via the receiver; Par. 64; i.e., the user could input a destination to the controller module);
calculating a driving time zone for which a mobility apparatus of the user will drive along the first route based on the traffic information; determining whether a current time is included in the driving time zone; recommending a stopover based on a user information about the user and the driving time zone when the current time is not included in the driving time zone (Quint: Par. 107-108; i.e., step 512, which assesses whether the electrified vehicle 10 is headed into a traffic delay or whether the electrified vehicle 10 is in a traffic delay… the method 500 moves to a step 520, which assesses nearby food locations… The assessment in the step 520 can be based on the predicted duration of the traffic delay to identify proposed food locations, such as restaurants, that would allow a user of the electrified vehicle 10 to detour from their current route and eat while the traffic delay clears; the system determines the driving time zone to be after the traffic delay dissipates, and if the current time is not a good time to continue, then a stopover is recommended to wait for the traffic delay to pass);
displaying a detailed information on the stopover (Quint: Par. 109; i.e., the stops are displayed to the user at a step 528 and the user is prompted to make a selection or to cancel the display);
and determining a second route including the stopover as a final route in response to an approval of the user on the stopover (Quint: Par. 110; i.e., if the user selects one of the stops in the step 532, the method 500 can then move to a step 536, which calculates a route to the selected stop and presents the route to the user).
Regarding claim 13, Quint teaches the computing device according to claim 11. Quint further teaches wherein the driving time zone for which the mobility apparatus of the user will drive along the first route is determined such that when the mobility apparatus of the user drives along the first route for the driving time zone, a time required to reach the destination is expected to be the shortest (Quint: Par. 116; i.e., if the electrified vehicle 10 is not in, or headed for, a traffic delay at the step 512, the method 500 moves to the stop step 526; it is inherent that if the current route does not include a traffic delay then the time required to reach the destination would be shortest).
Regarding claim 14, Quint teaches the computing device according to claim 11. Quint further teaches wherein the user information is extracted from a usage history of each of the computing device and a user device of the user, and the user information includes a schedule information of the user, a contents viewing history of the user, a past destination setting history of the user, or whether the user visits a specific location on a regular basis (Quint: Par. 151; i.e., the smart recommendations could, in some examples, additionally take into account one or more of an identity of the user, … other occupants in the vehicle, travel plans of the other occupants... The smart recommendations could pull the travel plan information by linking to digital calendars associated with the other occupants).
Regarding claim 15, Quint teaches the computing device according to claim 11. Quint further teaches wherein the stopover is a first stopover (Quint: Par. 110; i.e., the method 500 moves to a step 532 where the user can select a stop from the listing of at least one stops; the at least one stop is the first recommended stopover),
and wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the instructions cause the processor to further perform: determining the first route as the final route when the current time is included in the driving time zone (Quint: Par. 116; i.e., if the electrified vehicle 10 is not in, or headed for, a traffic delay at the step 512, the method 500 moves to the stop step 526; if the current time is during the window when a traffic delay does not occur, then the current route is the final route);
and recommending a second stopover different from the first stopover in response to the user not approving the first stopover (Quint: Par. 113; i.e., if not approved, the method 500 can move to a step 548, which displays a list of amenities with, for example, checkboxes identifying which amenities are present at the at least one stop. At a step 552, the user can utilize the checkboxes or another input mechanism to identify which amenities are desired for the at least one stop. The method 500 then moves to a step 558 where the user can command the method 500 to search again for at least one stop based on the identified amenities from the step 552; after the method is repeated, another stopover is recommended).
Regarding claim 16, Quint teaches the computing device according to claim 11. Quint further teaches wherein the recommending of the stopover further includes: obtaining a schedule information about the user from a user device of the user; checking whether there is a schedule starting at a timing between the current time and a stating time of the driving time zone; and recommending a location corresponding to the schedule as the stopover when there is the schedule starting at the timing between the current time and the stating time of the driving time zone (Quint: Par. 151; i.e., the smart recommendations could, in some examples, additionally take into account one or more of an identity of the user, … other occupants in the vehicle, travel plans of the other occupants... The smart recommendations could pull the travel plan information by linking to digital calendars associated with the other occupants).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quint and further in view of Ellenby et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0038706; hereinafter Ellenby).
Regarding claim 2, Quint teaches the method according to claim 1. Quint further teaches wherein the traffic information about the first route includes an information on an accident and a traffic control section related to the first route, and a weather information related to the first route, and the traffic information about the first route is acquired from an external server (Quint: Par. 45; i.e., Weather information, upcoming traffic conditions along the route (e.g., traffic building ahead), nightfall is approaching, a time of day is approaching a mealtime, and road hazards along the route are all examples of the types of environmental factors that could be sent to the controller module 22 via the receiver; Par. 53; i.e., a high urgency environmental factor could be a severe traffic jam, or a road closure along the route due to a traffic accident).
Quint does not explicitly teach wherein the traffic information about the first route includes an information on a rally and event related to the first route.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ellenby teaches wherein the traffic information about the first route includes an information on a rally and event related to the first route (Ellenby: Par. 41; i.e., environmental Modifiers: … Local events such as sports, parades and fairs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Quint to have further incorporated wherein the traffic information about the first route includes an information on a rally and event related to the first route, as taught by Ellenby. Doing so would allow the system to account for additional impediments or delays to the route (Ellenby: Par. 41; i.e., that may increase load on a transit system, alter or block routes).
Regarding claim 12, Quint teaches the computing device according to claim 11. Quint further teaches wherein the traffic information about the first route includes an information on an accident and a traffic control section related to the first route, and a weather information related to the first route, and the traffic information about the first route is acquired from an external server (Quint: Par. 45; i.e., Weather information, upcoming traffic conditions along the route (e.g., traffic building ahead), nightfall is approaching, a time of day is approaching a mealtime, and road hazards along the route are all examples of the types of environmental factors that could be sent to the controller module 22 via the receiver; Par. 53; i.e., a high urgency environmental factor could be a severe traffic jam, or a road closure along the route due to a traffic accident).
Quint does not explicitly teach wherein the traffic information about the first route includes an information on a rally and event related to the first route.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ellenby teaches wherein the traffic information about the first route includes an information on a rally and event related to the first route (Ellenby: Par. 41; i.e., environmental Modifiers: … Local events such as sports, parades and fairs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing device of Quint to have further incorporated wherein the traffic information about the first route includes an information on a rally and event related to the first route, as taught by Ellenby. Doing so would allow the system to account for additional impediments or delays to the route (Ellenby: Par. 41; i.e., that may increase load on a transit system, alter or block routes).
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quint and further in view of Baird (U.S. Patent No. 9140570; hereinafter Baird).
Regarding claim 9, Quint teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the recommending of the stopover includes: obtaining a past destination setting history of the user; checking whether there is a place that the user has visited on a regular basis; determining whether a distance between the place that the user has visited on the regular basis and the destination is shorter than a threshold when there is the place that the user has visited on the regular basis; recommending the place that the user has visited on the regular basis as the stopover when the distance between the place that the user has visited on the regular basis and the destination is shorter than the threshold; and recommending another place having a distance to the destination shorter than the threshold and having a same type of the place that the user has visited on the regular basis when the distance between the place that the user has visited on the regular basis and the destination is equal to or longer than the threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Baird teaches wherein the recommending of the stopover includes: obtaining a past destination setting history of the user; checking whether there is a place that the user has visited on a regular basis (Baird: Col. 5, lines 44-48; i.e., The trip planning application in this embodiment walks the user through setting up a trip plan based on any of a number of types of information, such as … historical information; Col. 15, lines 7-10; i.e., one traveler typically stops for a restroom break every hour based on historical information); determining whether a distance between the place that the user has visited on the regular basis and the destination is shorter than a threshold when there is the place that the user has visited on the regular basis (Baird: Col. 13, lines 3-8; i.e., the request specifying at least one aspect to be used in determining an appropriate waypoint. The at least one aspect can include … a relative location for the stop (e.g., in a town or within a given radius from a point or address)); recommending the place that the user has visited on the regular basis as the stopover when the distance between the place that the user has visited on the regular basis and the destination is shorter than the threshold (Baird: Col. 13, lines 9-12; i.e., upon receiving the request, one or more waypoints having or substantially matching the at least one aspect can be determined 806, and information for at least one of these waypoints can be presented to the user; if the at least one aspect of the stop being within a given radius is met, the stop is recommended to the user); and recommending another place having a distance to the destination shorter than the threshold and having a same type of the place that the user has visited on the regular basis when the distance between the place that the user has visited on the regular basis and the destination is equal to or longer than the threshold (Baird: Col. 7, lines 6-8; i.e., a user might want to add rest stops, public restrooms, or other stops for various reasons; Col. 15, lines 9-10; i.e., the trip plan can add in restroom breaks as appropriate; Col. 13, lines 9-12; i.e., one or more waypoints having or substantially matching the at least one aspect can be determined 806, and information for at least one of these waypoints can be presented to the user; only restrooms within the given radius are presented as recommended stops).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Quint to have further incorporated wherein the recommending of the stopover includes: obtaining a past destination setting history of the user; checking whether there is a place that the user has visited on a regular basis; determining whether a distance between the place that the user has visited on the regular basis and the destination is shorter than a threshold when there is the place that the user has visited on the regular basis; recommending the place that the user has visited on the regular basis as the stopover when the distance between the place that the user has visited on the regular basis and the destination is shorter than the threshold; and recommending another place having a distance to the destination shorter than the threshold and having a same type of the place that the user has visited on the regular basis when the distance between the place that the user has visited on the regular basis and the destination is equal to or longer than the threshold, as taught by Baird. Doing so would allow the system to determine a route with the shortest distance and shortest time (Baird: Col. 12, lines 37-40; i.e., information such as the directions and the duration of a given route are determined 710, in order to rank and or select the various routes according to one or more criteria, such as shortest distance, shortest time).
Regarding claim 10, Quint teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the detailed information about the stopover includes the user information based on the stopover recommended, business hours of the stopover, an event that is being held at the stopover, a rating of the stopover, and an expected driving time required to reach the destination when the mobility apparatus of the user drives along the second route including the stopover.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Baird teaches wherein the detailed information about the stopover includes the user information based on the stopover recommended, business hours of the stopover, an event that is being held at the stopover, a rating of the stopover, and an expected driving time required to reach the destination when the mobility apparatus of the user drives along the second route including the stopover (Baird: Col. 4, lines 48-51; i.e., information 344 for that restaurant is displayed. The information can include any appropriate information, such as … reviews… and other such information; Col. 7, lines 40-42; i.e., Information regarding the selected portion 482 can be displayed, along with the details 484 of the relevant stops during that portion, including timing information; the stopover recommendations are based on the user preferences, and as displayed in Figure 3c, the rating of the stopover is displayed, and as displayed in Figure 4e, business hours and a kids eat free event are displayed for the recommended stopover).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Quint to have further incorporated wherein the detailed information about the stopover includes the user information based on the stopover recommended, business hours of the stopover, an event that is being held at the stopover, a rating of the stopover, and an expected driving time required to reach the destination when the mobility apparatus of the user drives along the second route including the stopover, as taught by Baird. Doing so would allow the user to review all the displayed information and quickly make adjustments to the route (Baird: Col. 7, lines 62-66; i.e., a user-selectable element 492 might be displayed when the user hovers over a stop, enabling the user to quickly adjust information such as to increase or decrease the amount of time for the stop, delete the stop, or perform other such actions).
Regarding claim 19, Quint teaches the computing device according to claim 11, but does not explicitly teach wherein the recommending of the stopover includes: obtaining a past destination setting history of the user; checking whether there is a place that the user has visited on a regular basis; determining whether a distance between the place that the user has visited on the regular basis and the destination is shorter than a threshold when there is the place that the user has visited on the regular basis; recommending the place that the user has visited on the regular basis as the stopover when the distance between the place that the user has visited on the regular basis and the destination is shorter than the threshold; and recommending another place having a distance to the destination shorter than the threshold and having a same type of the place that the user has visited on the regular basis when the distance between the place that the user has visited on the regular basis and the destination is equal to or longer than the threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Baird teaches wherein the recommending of the stopover includes: obtaining a past destination setting history of the user; checking whether there is a place that the user has visited on a regular basis (Baird: Col. 5, lines 44-48; i.e., The trip planning application in this embodiment walks the user through setting up a trip plan based on any of a number of types of information, such as … historical information; Col. 15, lines 7-10; i.e., one traveler typically stops for a restroom break every hour based on historical information); determining whether a distance between the place that the user has visited on the regular basis and the destination is shorter than a threshold when there is the place that the user has visited on the regular basis (Baird: Col. 13, lines 3-8; i.e., the request specifying at least one aspect to be used in determining an appropriate waypoint. The at least one aspect can include … a relative location for the stop (e.g., in a town or within a given radius from a point or address)); recommending the place that the user has visited on the regular basis as the stopover when the distance between the place that the user has visited on the regular basis and the destination is shorter than the threshold (Baird: Col. 13, lines 9-12; i.e., upon receiving the request, one or more waypoints having or substantially matching the at least one aspect can be determined 806, and information for at least one of these waypoints can be presented to the user; if the at least one aspect of the stop being within a given radius is met, the stop is recommended to the user); and recommending another place having a distance to the destination shorter than the threshold and having a same type of the place that the user has visited on the regular basis when the distance between the place that the user has visited on the regular basis and the destination is equal to or longer than the threshold (Baird: Col. 7, lines 6-8; i.e., a user might want to add rest stops, public restrooms, or other stops for various reasons; Col. 15, lines 9-10; i.e., the trip plan can add in restroom breaks as appropriate; Col. 13, lines 9-12; i.e., one or more waypoints having or substantially matching the at least one aspect can be determined 806, and information for at least one of these waypoints can be presented to the user; only restrooms within the given radius are presented as recommended stops).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing device of Quint to have further incorporated wherein the recommending of the stopover includes: obtaining a past destination setting history of the user; checking whether there is a place that the user has visited on a regular basis; determining whether a distance between the place that the user has visited on the regular basis and the destination is shorter than a threshold when there is the place that the user has visited on the regular basis; recommending the place that the user has visited on the regular basis as the stopover when the distance between the place that the user has visited on the regular basis and the destination is shorter than the threshold; and recommending another place having a distance to the destination shorter than the threshold and having a same type of the place that the user has visited on the regular basis when the distance between the place that the user has visited on the regular basis and the destination is equal to or longer than the threshold, as taught by Baird. Doing so would allow the system to determine a route with the shortest distance and shortest time (Baird: Col. 12, lines 37-40; i.e., information such as the directions and the duration of a given route are determined 710, in order to rank and or select the various routes according to one or more criteria, such as shortest distance, shortest time).
Regarding claim 20, Quint teaches the computing device according to claim 11, but does not explicitly teach wherein the detailed information about the stopover includes the user information based on the stopover recommended, business hours of the stopover, an event that is being held at the stopover, a rating of the stopover, and an expected driving time required to reach the destination when the mobility apparatus of the user drives along the second route including the stopover.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Baird teaches wherein the detailed information about the stopover includes the user information based on the stopover recommended, business hours of the stopover, an event that is being held at the stopover, a rating of the stopover, and an expected driving time required to reach the destination when the mobility apparatus of the user drives along the second route including the stopover (Baird: Col. 4, lines 48-51; i.e., information 344 for that restaurant is displayed. The information can include any appropriate information, such as … reviews… and other such information; Col. 7, lines 40-42; i.e., Information regarding the selected portion 482 can be displayed, along with the details 484 of the relevant stops during that portion, including timing information; the stopover recommendations are based on the user preferences, and as displayed in Figure 3c, the rating of the stopover is displayed, and as displayed in Figure 4e, business hours and a kids eat free event are displayed for the recommended stopover).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing device of Quint to have further incorporated wherein the detailed information about the stopover includes the user information based on the stopover recommended, business hours of the stopover, an event that is being held at the stopover, a rating of the stopover, and an expected driving time required to reach the destination when the mobility apparatus of the user drives along the second route including the stopover, as taught by Baird. Doing so would allow the user to review all the displayed information and quickly make adjustments to the route (Baird: Col. 7, lines 62-66; i.e., a user-selectable element 492 might be displayed when the user hovers over a stop, enabling the user to quickly adjust information such as to increase or decrease the amount of time for the stop, delete the stop, or perform other such actions).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art deemed pertinent in the art of determining alternate routes with a stopover based on traffic information along the current route includes Nagata (U.S. Patent No. 11099027), Fino (U.S. Patent No. 9691280), Beaurepaire (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0240808), Tanaka et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0086223), Paek et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0345958), and MacNeille et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0226731).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON Z WILLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/BRANDON Z WILLIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3665