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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 18/949660, filed on 15 November 2024, are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 15 November 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of claim 1:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward method (process) which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1. A method of a navigation device for generating a detour route, the method comprising:
collecting an energy efficiency influence factor for an initial route provided from an external environment server;
generating a detour route different from the initial route based on the energy efficiency influence factor; and
providing the detour route.
The limitation highlighted in claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitations of claim 1 highlighted above merely consist of generating a detour route that is different from an initial route based on data collected from a sensor. This is equivalent to a person looking at obtained sensor data and mentally making determinations/observations as to a more appropriate route that deviates from the initial route (for example a person observing hills or traffic would consider and pick a different route). Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1. A method of a navigation device for generating a detour route, the method comprising:
collecting an energy efficiency influence factor for an initial route provided from an external environment server;
generating a detour route different from the initial route based on the energy efficiency influence factor; and
providing the detour route.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The collecting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of obtaining data from a sensor) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Still further, the providing step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of presenting the results of the generating step) and amount to mere post solution actions, which is also a form of insignificant extra solution activity. As such, claim 1 is not integrated into practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, there are two additional elements. The first is the collection step, which is performed using external environment sensors. As explained previously, the collection step is mere data gathering, and the collection of data using external environment sensors is merely well understood, routine and conventional activity for environment sensors. The second additional element is the providing of the detour route (presumably on the navigation device/display). These elements are generic and conventional components in the art. The use of a navigation device to display a generated route is well-understood, routine and conventional activity for vehicle navigation devices. MPEP 2106.05(d)
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Analysis of claims 17 and 20:
Claims 17 and 20 are commensurate in scope to claim 1, with claim 1 being drawn to a method, claim 17 being drawn to a corresponding system and claim 20 being drawn to a corresponding server. The additional elements of at least one processor, a memory storing instructions and a server comprising a communication interface are all claimed generically such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a system or a server.
Analysis of claims 2-16 and 18-19:
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-19 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 2-16 and 18-19 include limitations that are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exceptions and/or are well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Symanow et al. (US 2020/0271470 A1, “Symanow”).
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 20, Symanow discloses vehicle path identification and teaches:
collecting an energy efficiency influence factor for an initial route provided from an external environment server (at 210, map data is retrieved and at 215 an initial route is developed based in part on the map data – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0058]-[0061]; map data may include metadata, including elevation and type of road, describing segments – see at least ¶ [0060]; i.e., elevation = energy efficiency influence factor; map data and telematics data may be received from other servers – see at least ¶ [0049]);
generating a detour route different from the initial route based on the energy efficiency influence factor (at 230 mission energy is compared to available energy and if the mission energy is greater than available energy, the route may be modified at 235 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0080]-[0082]; at 225, mission energy is determined based at least in part on elevation data – see at least Figs. 2 and ¶ [0077], [0110], [0114]); and
providing the detour route (at 245, the vehicle is operated along the modified route – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0084]).
Regarding claim 2, Symanow further teaches:
wherein the energy efficiency influence factor includes a terrain information on the initial route and a road state information of a road included in the initial route (map data may include metadata, including elevation and type of road, describing segments – see at least ¶ [0060]; at 225, mission energy is determined based at least in part on elevation map data and telematics data, including traffic conditions – see at least Figs. 2 and ¶ [0051], [0077], [0110], [0114]; factors may be adjusted for weather and traffic conditions – see at least ¶ [0111]).
Regarding claim 3, Symanow further teaches:
wherein the terrain information on the initial route includes information on an elevation difference of the road included in the initial route (elevation changes during the segment – see at least ¶ [0110]).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Symanow in view of Tang (US 2010/0198508 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Symanow fails to teach but Tang discloses a navigation system having route customization and teaches:
wherein the road state information includes a roughness information of a surface of the road (fuel consumption may be calculated based on different road pavements, e.g., dirt, asphalt, fording streams, desert sand, ice, snow – see at least ¶ [0065]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device for vehicle path identification of Symanow to provide for the road state information to include roughness information, as taught by Tang, with a reasonable expectation of success because the pavement type may be used to determine slippage and traction information, which may be used to calculate additional fuel consumption (Tang at ¶ [0066]).
Claims 5-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Symanow in view of Saleh et al. (US 2021/0063181 A1, “Saleh”).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Symanow further teaches:
wherein the generating of the detour route different from the initial route based on the energy efficiency influence factor includes:
obtaining the energy efficiency influence factor for the initial route from the external environment server (at 210, map data is retrieved and at 215 an initial route is developed based in part on the map data – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0058]-[0061]; map data may include metadata, including elevation and type of road, describing segments – see at least ¶ [0060]; i.e., elevation = energy efficiency influence factor; map data and telematics data may be received from other servers – see at least ¶ [0049]);
[ ]; and
generating the detour route different from the initial route in at least some sections using the energy efficiency influence factor obtained from the external environment server [ ] (at 230 mission energy is compared to available energy and if the mission energy is greater than available energy, the route may be modified at 235 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0080]-[0082]; at 225, mission energy is determined based at least in part on elevation data – see at least Figs. 2 and ¶ [0077], [0110], [0114]).
Symanow fails to teach obtaining an energy efficiency influence factor according to a travel record of another vehicle on the initial route; generating the detour route using the energy efficiency influence factor according to the travel record of the another vehicle.
However, Saleh discloses cost-based vehicle routing and teaches:
obtaining an energy efficiency influence factor according to a travel record of another vehicle on the initial route (cost-based routing system 310 may receive information from other vehicles 324 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0064]); and
generating the [route] using the energy efficiency influence factor obtained from the external environment server and the energy efficiency influence factor according to the travel record of the another vehicle (cost values for routes may be determined based on data from services 322, other vehicles 324, and vehicle systems 326 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0064]; data from services 322 may include terrain data, such as hilly terrain – see at least ¶ [0066]; data from other vehicles may include consumption data, such as instantaneous or average fuel consumptions for particular route segments – see at least ¶ [0072], [0075]; data from other vehicles may include brake application, wheel spin, etc. – see at least ¶ [0076]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device for vehicle path identification of Symanow to provide for obtaining an energy influence factor according to another vehicle to generate the route, as taught by Saleh, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow costs to be performed quantitatively based on actual trip data (Saleh at ¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 6, Saleh further teaches:
wherein the energy efficiency influence factor according to the travel record of the another vehicle includes a brake information, a speed information, and a system use amount information (track brake application and speed of vehicle during braking – see at least ¶ [0076]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined device for vehicle path identification of Symanow and Saleh to provide for obtaining an energy influence factor according to another vehicle to generate the route, as taught by Saleh, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow costs to be performed quantitatively based on actual trip data (Saleh at ¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, Saleh further teaches:
wherein the brake information includes information on the number of times of stepping on a brake (track brake application – see at least ¶ [0076]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined device for vehicle path identification of Symanow and Saleh to provide for obtaining an energy influence factor according to another vehicle to generate the route, as taught by Saleh, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow costs to be performed quantitatively based on actual trip data (Saleh at ¶ [0032]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Symanow in view of Inoue et al. (US 2017/0010116 A1, “Inoue”).
Regarding claim 9, Symanow fails to teach but Inoue discloses a vehicle information providing device and teaches:
wherein the system use amount information includes a heater operation information, a heating wire operation information, and an air conditioner operation information (air conditioner usage detector 10 detects air conditioner usage and/or electric heater usage – see at least ¶ [0030]; driving history information is collected by vehicle information providing device 3, where the history information includes air conditioner usage – see at least ¶ [0038]; terminal device 2 determines power consumption based on the information from device 3 – see at least Fig. 2A and ¶ [0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device for vehicle path identification of Symanow to provide for system us amount information, as taught by Inoue, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for determining the power consumption of the route (Inoue at ¶ [0043]).
Claims 10, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Symanow in view of Matsumura et al. (US 2019/0113354 A1, “Matsumura”).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Symanow fails to teach but Matsumura discloses systems and methods for variable energy routing and tracking and teaches:
displaying an expected comparison result between the initial route and the detour route (alternative routes may be displayed indicating time and fuel usage comparisons – see at least Fig. 11 and ¶ [0118]; information on time and energy of route options are provided using graphic display on the device – see at least ¶ [0125]);
receiving a user input for the detour route based on the expected comparison result (user route choice – see at least ¶ [0118]; local selection of one or more routes – see at least ¶ [0059]); and
displaying a detour route information received from the user input (identified weighted route may be displayed – see at least ¶ [0008]; currently planned route may be displayed – see at least ¶ [0111]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device for vehicle path identification of Symanow to provide for displaying a comparison result, receiving a user input, and displaying a route, as taught by Matsumura, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the driver to identify a route that satisfies the user’s time and/or energy consumption preference (Matsumura at ¶ [0005]).
Regarding claim 13, Matsumura further teaches:
wherein in the displaying of the detour route information received from the user input, a comparison result between the initial route and the detour route is displayed, and wherein the comparison result is generated based on a difference from the expected comparison result (e.g., ‘Add 2 min’ and ‘Save 7% fuel’ are based on a difference from the default route – see at least Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined device for vehicle path identification of Symanow and Matsumura to provide for displaying the detour route information, as further taught by Matsumura, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the driver to identify a route that satisfies the user’s time and/or energy consumption preference (Matsumura at ¶ [0005]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Symanow in view of Matsumura, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Bai et al. (US 2017/0146362 A1, “Bai”).
Regarding claim 11, Matsumura further teaches:
wherein the expected comparison result between the initial route and the detour route is generated based on an energy efficiency information, a state of charge (SOC) change amount information, a distance information, a time information (model for energy use may be computed based on change in charge level over segments – see at least ¶ [0079]; data 420 may include fuel economy or energy efficiency based on fuel use and distance traveled – see at least ¶ [0070]; time comparison – see at least Fig. 11), and [ ].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined device for vehicle path identification of Symanow and Matsumura to provide for providing a comparison result, as further taught by Matsumura, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the driver to identify a route that satisfies the user’s time and/or energy consumption preference (Matsumura at ¶ [0005]).
Matsumura fails to teach wherein the expected comparison result between the initial route and the detour route is generated based on a fee information of the initial route or the detour route.
However, Bai discloses a method and apparatus for fuel consumption prediction and cost estimation and teaches:
wherein the expected comparison result between the initial route and the detour route is generated based on a fee information of the initial route or the detour route (server 120 computes one or more navigation routes and computes fuel consumption and fuel cost for each route – see at least ¶ [0051]; route options are provided to the driver, where the route options include time, fuel consumption, and fuel cost – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined device for vehicle path identification of Symanow and Matsumura to provide for providing a comparison result based on fee information, as taught by Bai, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would help drivers by providing additional Bai about navigation routing options which may help the driver determine which route to take (Matsumura at ¶ [0006]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Symanow in view of Matsumura and Bai, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Gambera et al. (US 2016/0123755 A1, “Gambera”).
Regarding claim 12, Symanow, Matsumura, and Bai fail to teach but Gambera discloses preventive fuel saving-aimed motor vehicle driver assistance and teaches:
wherein the expected comparison result between the initial route and the detour route includes a guide information based on the energy efficiency information, the SOC change amount information, the distance information, the time information, and the fee information of the initial route or the detour route, and wherein the guide information includes an appropriate speed information and a regenerative braking level information (optimal speed profiles for expected fuel consumption along the route may be computed – see at least ¶ [0086]; driver coaching based on optimal speed profiles – see at least ¶ [0107]; recommendations, e.g., “slow down”, “remove foot from accelerator pedal” can be provided to the driver – see at least ¶ [0108]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined device for vehicle path identification of Symanow, Matsumura and Bai to provide guide information, as taught by Gambera, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would help result in more efficient or environmentally-friendly motor vehicle driving (Gambera at ¶ [0107]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Symanow in view of Grochocki, Jr. et al. (US 2018/0094943 A1, “Grochocki”).
Regarding claim 14, Symanow fails to teach but Grochocki discloses generating personalized routes with user route preferences and teaches:
collecting a satisfaction evaluation information of the user for the detour route (intraroute feedback 168 may be received via output device 128 – see at least Fig. 11B and ¶ [0083]);
modifying the initial route based on the satisfaction evaluation information (preferred route characteristics 156 are determined based on the feedback 168 – see at least ¶ [0085]; route preferences indicating preferred route characteristics of the user are retrieved at 1320 and a personalized route is generated based on the preferred route characteristic at 1326 – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0109]-[0112]); and
providing the initial route modified based on the satisfaction evaluation information (the personalized route is displayed to the user at 1328 – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0113]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device for vehicle path identification of Symanow to provide collecting satisfaction evaluation information and modifying the route based on the information, as taught by Grochocki, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a route that is personalized for the user (Grochocki at abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666