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
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed on 11/19/2024. Claims 1—20 are currently pending.
Priority
The Applicant’s claim for benefit of Foreign Patent Application KR10-2023-0161426, filed in the Republic of Korea on 11/20/2023, has been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 11/19/2024 has been reviewed and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6—8 and 10—17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6—8 and 10—17 recites the limitation directed to a “context information” which are numbered in a manner which does not have antecedent basis in claim 1. To start, claim 6 depends directly from claim 1 where claim 1 recites “obtaining a context information indicating…” and claim 6 recites “obtaining a first context information indicating…”. It is unclear how “a context information” and “a first context information” relate to each other. For example, it is unclear whether they are intended to be same element or distinct elements. Claim 8 additionally depends from claim 1 where claim 8 recites the following limitation which does not have antecedent basis in claim 1: “obtaining a third context information indicating…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 10—17 are drafted in a similar manner as that of claim 8 and are rendered indefinite for substantially similar reasons.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending from a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1 and 18 are directed to a product (machine or manufacture) and a method (process), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent SUBJECT Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception
Claims 1 and 18 recite(s) the abstract limitations of, or substantially similar to: “obtaining from a vehicle a vehicle information indicating a state of a vehicle” (e.g., a mental process); “obtaining a context information indicating a situation of a passenger using the vehicle information” (e.g., a mental process); and “determining respective priorities of a plurality of surrounding search categories based on the context information” (e.g., a mental process).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations provided above cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. The limitations directed to obtaining data from a vehicle or from a passenger do not recite any claim elements (e.g., sensors) which preclude the action from being performed by a human mind. For example, a human mind is capable of observing a vehicle and determining that it is turned on and/or where it is located (e.g., state of the vehicle). Regarding the limitation directed to “determining,” Examiner notes that, method steps directed to making determinations are indicative of mental processes. More specifically, making determinations regarding the priority/ranking/filtering/sorting of a dataset is well within the scope of a human mind. As such, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of generic computing elements does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claims 1 and 18 recites the additional element of “displaying the plurality of surrounding search categories under respective priorities” (e.g., equivalent to reciting “apply it”).
The above identified limitation constitutes an additional element; however, functions are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements of “displaying the plurality of surrounding search categories under respective priorities,” are equivalent to reciting “apply it.” As drafted the limitation merely provides the idea of a solution or outcome. Moreover, the claims do not recite the details of how the solution is accomplished. To this end the MPEP states “[b]y way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).” (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of the instant claims are generally directed to a process equivalent or substantially similar to: gathering, analyzing, and displaying data/information. To this end, the MPEP states: “[e]xamples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include… iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48” (MPEP 2106.05(a)).” (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Examiner notes the limitations of the claims are currently recited very generically and constitute “conventional techniques.”
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The limitations of claims 2, 5, and 19 function to further limit the claim elements of “state of the vehicle” and “context information” by reciting various types of information which may be selected and utilized to make the determination (e.g., associated with an analysis/mental process). The limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity insofar as selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated constitutes court identified extra-solution activity. For example, the MPEP provides “activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity… selecting a particular data source or type to be manipulated… selecting information… iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)…” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
Claims 3, 4, and 20 recite limitations which are directed to further limiting the abstract idea of “determining respective priorities…” as recited in claims 1 and 18. However, the limitations themselves are directed to the mental processes of “setting a priority of a first surrounding search category…” and “determining a priority related to each item…” which are all directed to actions and determinations which are performable in a human mind. As such, the limitations of claims 3, 4, and 20 are further directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not provide any additional elements which may be utilized to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 6—17 recite limitations directed to separate, additional, determinations made in addition to the determination recited in claim 1. As stated above, the action of making a determination (e.g., determining) is performable in a human mind. In some situations the determination may benefit from, or require, the utilization of a mathematical concept; however, such limitations are also considered judicial exceptions. Claim 6 further recites limitations directed to “comparing an information of a current location with an information of a reference location,” where the action of “comparing” constitutes a mental process where a human brain is capable of comparing data/making comparisons. Claim 12 further recites the limitation “obtaining a population density of the destination,” which is an additional element; however the limitation is directed to mere data gathering where all uses of the recited judicial exception would require such data gathering. The additional element of “obtaining a population density of the destination,” does not integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application. As such, claims 6—17 recite limitations which themselves are directed to abstract ideas and do not provide additional elements which properly integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1—5 and 18—20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Published WIPO Patent Application to Tsuyoshi (WO 2015045629 A1) which is supplied herewith.
Regarding claim 1, Tsuyoshi discloses [a] computing device (navigation system 1; page 3 Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he navigation system 1 of Embodiment 1 comprises a GPS receiver 2, an operation input unit 3, a sensor unit 4, a map database 5, a communication unit 6, a calculation control unit 7, a storage device 8, a display 9, and a speaker 10. The GPS receiver 2 receives radio signals from GPS satellites to detect the vehicle's current location and direction of travel.”), comprising:
a processor (calculation control unit 7; page 4 of Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he calculation control unit 7 consists of a microcomputer and peripheral components such as memory.”); and
a memory connected to the processor (see previous citation to calculation control unit 7) and configured to store therein instructions, wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the instructions cause the processor to perform a method comprising: obtaining from a vehicle a vehicle information indicating a state of the vehicle (pages 3—4 of Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he GPS receiver 2 receives radio signals from GPS satellites to detect the vehicle's current location and direction of travel… The sensor unit 4 is equipped with various sensors that detect the vehicle's speed, distance traveled, direction of travel, and other parameters… The communication unit (interest point detection means) 6 acquires information on specific interest points (POIs) scattered around the vehicle”; page 4 of Tsuyoshi further states “[t]n addition to functions as a navigation device, such as detecting the vehicle's current location based on its mileage and direction of travel, controlling the display of a road map around the vehicle's current location, and searching for a guidance route to the destination, it also functions as a vehicle information display device, providing the driver with information on points of interest acquired by the vehicle.”); obtaining a context information indicating a situation of a passenger using the vehicle information (page 4 of Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he storage device 8 stores the vehicle's movement history, information on acquired points of interest, and driver preference information, etc. These memory records are updated with the latest information as they become available.; determining respective priorities of a plurality of surrounding search categories based on the context information (page 5 of Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he calculation control unit 7 includes an interest intensity evaluation unit (interest intensity evaluation means) 7a and a display control unit (display control means) 7b. The interest intensity evaluation unit 7a evaluates the driver's interest in each interest point based on the strength of the driver's preference for each interest point and the distance between each interest point and the vehicle.” Providing an evaluation of the intensity of interest for each point of interest based on the driver’ss preference is equivalent to determining the priority of the surrounded categories based on context information (e.g., context information relative to the driver or the vehicle location which is also the driver’s location)); and displaying the plurality of surrounding search categories under the respective priorities (page 5 of Tsuyoshi states “[t]he display control unit 7b categorizes each interest point according to the evaluation result of the interest intensity evaluation unit 7a and displays them on the display 9.” The points of interest are displayed according to the determined interest intensity).
Regarding claim 2, Tsuyoshi discloses wherein the vehicle information includes a vehicle location information (pages 3—4 of Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he GPS receiver 2 receives radio signals from GPS satellites to detect the vehicle's current location and direction of travel… The sensor unit 4 is equipped with various sensors that detect the vehicle's speed, distance traveled, direction of travel, and other parameters… The communication unit (interest point detection means) 6 acquires information on specific interest points (POIs) scattered around the vehicle”), an information on whether a child lock is activated, a distance to empty (DTE) information indicating a fuel level, an information on whether a warning signal is received from the vehicle, an information on whether a wiper is in operation, an information on whether a sunroof is open or closed, or a weight of a loaded cargo.
Regarding claim 3, Tsuyoshi discloses wherein the determining the respective priorities of the plurality of surrounding search categories includes setting a priority of a first surrounding search category related to the context information among the plurality of surrounding search categories to a highest level or a lowest level (Tsuyoshi describes a weighted calculation used to determine an interest intensity among multiple points of interest where the calculation will inherently generate an outcome with a highest calculation and an outcome with a lowest calculation; Tsuyoshi at pages 8—9 states “[t]he display control unit 7b sorts each interest point in descending order of interest (MI), selects the information A to G for the top seven interest points, and displays them on the display 9 as shown in Figure 5. The interest points displayed are changed according to the results of the interest strength (MI) calculation, which is performed at predetermined intervals. Figure 5 shows an example where seven points of interest, A through G, are displayed in a circular arrangement… Furthermore, the display control unit 7b may switch the level of interest (MI) of the interest points to be displayed in response to the operation input unit 3 by the driver. For example, each interest point could be divided into three categories—large, medium, and small—with seven points each, in order of increasing interest level (MI), and the displayed interest points could be switched in the order of large → medium → small → large… depending on the user's input. At this time, the greater the level of interest (MI), the more visual effects are applied, such as increasing the display size or brightening the glow of the border, to highlight the information that the driver is most interested in.” ).
Regarding claim 4, Tsuyoshi discloses wherein the determining the respective priorities of the plurality of surrounding search categories includes determining a priority related to each item of the first surrounding search category (as described above with respect to claim 1, each point of interest will receive an interest intensity calculation which provides for determining the priority of each point of interest. See above portion of Tsuyoshi as cited in claims 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, Tsuyoshi discloses wherein the obtaining the context information indicating the situation of the passenger includes obtaining the context information using information about a current time, a real-time traffic situation, and a specific location (pages 3—4 of Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he GPS receiver 2 receives radio signals from GPS satellites to detect the vehicle's current location and direction of travel… The sensor unit 4 is equipped with various sensors that detect the vehicle's speed, distance traveled, direction of travel, and other parameters… The communication unit (interest point detection means) 6 acquires information on specific interest points (POIs) scattered around the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 18, Tsuyoshi discloses [a] search category varying method (calculations performed by interest intensity evaluation unit as described below) performed by a computing device (navigation system 1 including calculation control unit 7), the method comprising: obtaining from a vehicle a vehicle information indicating a state of the vehicle (pages 3—4 of Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he GPS receiver 2 receives radio signals from GPS satellites to detect the vehicle's current location and direction of travel… The sensor unit 4 is equipped with various sensors that detect the vehicle's speed, distance traveled, direction of travel, and other parameters… The communication unit (interest point detection means) 6 acquires information on specific interest points (POIs) scattered around the vehicle”; page 4 of Tsuyoshi further states “[t]n addition to functions as a navigation device, such as detecting the vehicle's current location based on its mileage and direction of travel, controlling the display of a road map around the vehicle's current location, and searching for a guidance route to the destination, it also functions as a vehicle information display device, providing the driver with information on points of interest acquired by the vehicle.”); obtaining a context information indicating a situation of a passenger using the vehicle information (page 4 of Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he storage device 8 stores the vehicle's movement history, information on acquired points of interest, and driver preference information, etc. These memory records are updated with the latest information as they become available.”); determining respective priorities of a plurality of surrounding search categories, based on the context information (page 5 of Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he calculation control unit 7 includes an interest intensity evaluation unit (interest intensity evaluation means) 7a and a display control unit (display control means) 7b. The interest intensity evaluation unit 7a evaluates the driver's interest in each interest point based on the strength of the driver's preference for each interest point and the distance between each interest point and the vehicle.” Providing an evaluation of the intensity of interest for each point of interest based on the driver’s preference is equivalent to determining the priority of the surrounded categories based on context information (e.g., context information relative to the driver or the vehicle location which is also the driver’s location)); and displaying the plurality of surrounding search categories under the respective priorities (page 5 of Tsuyoshi states “[t]he display control unit 7b categorizes each interest point according to the evaluation result of the interest intensity evaluation unit 7a and displays them on the display 9.” The points of interest are displayed according to the determined interest intensity).
Regarding claim 19, Tsuyoshi discloses wherein the vehicle information includes a vehicle location information (pages 3—4 of Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he GPS receiver 2 receives radio signals from GPS satellites to detect the vehicle's current location and direction of travel… The sensor unit 4 is equipped with various sensors that detect the vehicle's speed, distance traveled, direction of travel, and other parameters… The communication unit (interest point detection means) 6 acquires information on specific interest points (POIs) scattered around the vehicle”), an information on whether a child lock is activated, a distance to empty (DTE) information indicating a fuel level, an information on whether a warning signal is received from the vehicle, an information on whether a wiper is in operation, an information on whether a sunroof is open or closed, or a weight of a loaded cargo.
Regarding claim 20, Tsuyoshi discloses wherein the determining the respective priorities of the plurality of surrounding search categories includes setting a priority of a first surrounding search category related to the context information among the plurality of surrounding search categories to a highest level or a lowest level (Tsuyoshi describes a weighted calculation used to determine an interest intensity among multiple points of interest where the calculation will inherently generate an outcome with a highest calculation and an outcome with a lowest calculation; Tsuyoshi at pages 8—9 states “[t]he display control unit 7b sorts each interest point in descending order of interest (MI), selects the information A to G for the top seven interest points, and displays them on the display 9 as shown in Figure 5. The interest points displayed are changed according to the results of the interest strength (MI) calculation, which is performed at predetermined intervals. Figure 5 shows an example where seven points of interest, A through G, are displayed in a circular arrangement… Furthermore, the display control unit 7b may switch the level of interest (MI) of the interest points to be displayed in response to the operation input unit 3 by the driver. For example, each interest point could be divided into three categories—large, medium, and small—with seven points each, in order of increasing interest level (MI), and the displayed interest points could be switched in the order of large → medium → small → large… depending on the user's input. At this time, the greater the level of interest (MI), the more visual effects are applied, such as increasing the display size or brightening the glow of the border, to highlight the information that the driver is most interested in.” ).
Claim(s) 1—5, 13—14, and 18—20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Published US Patent Application to Zender et al., hereinafter “Zender” (US 20200182635 A1) which is supplied herewith.
Regarding claim 1, Zender et al. discloses [a] computing device (para. [0022], “a system 100 for automatically determining waypoints along a vehicle route of travel… The example system 100 includes a user interface 105, vehicle interface 110, navigation interface 115, and a processor 120 in communication with the user interface 105, vehicle interface 110, and navigation interface 115.”), comprising: a processor (processor 120); and a memory (processor 120 includes a memory) connected to the processor and configured to store therein instructions, wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the instructions cause the processor to perform a method comprising: obtaining from a vehicle a vehicle information indicating a state of the vehicle (para. [0027], “[t]he processor 120 is configured to determine at least one candidate waypoint to add to the route of travel based on the amount of fuel remaining in the vehicle (or driver drowsiness) and driver preference factors. The driver preference factors can include, for example, a price factor or a convenience factor.”);
obtaining a context information indicating a situation of a passenger using the vehicle information (para. [0027], “[t]he processor 120 is configured to determine at least one candidate waypoint to add to the route of travel based on the amount of fuel remaining in the vehicle (or driver drowsiness) and driver preference factors. The driver preference factors can include, for example, a price factor or a convenience factor.”); determining respective priorities of a plurality of surrounding search categories based on the context information (para. [0027], “[t]he processor 120 can determine scores for a plurality of candidate waypoints based on the driver preference factors, and can cause the user interface 105 to present a list of candidate waypoints having the highest scores.”); and displaying the plurality of surrounding search categories under the respective priorities (para. [0027], “[t]he processor 120 can determine scores for a plurality of candidate waypoints based on the driver preference factors, and can cause the user interface 105 to present a list of candidate waypoints having the highest scores.”).
Regarding claim 2, Zender et al. discloses wherein the vehicle information includes a vehicle location information, an information on whether a child lock is activated, a distance to empty (DTE) information indicating a fuel level (para. [0021], “[t]he waypoint adjustment can be triggered not only by user requests (e.g., verbal or haptic interaction), but also by signals from in-car sensors (e.g., low fuel/battery detection, drowsiness detection).”; para. [0030], “[t]he fuel system interface 210 is configured to determine an amount of fuel remaining in the vehicle, which the processor 220 can use to determine and suggest waypoints for the driver.”; para. [0036], “[i]n the case where a driver requests the system to navigate to a given destination, the system can assess whether the distance to the destination exceeds the current fuel/battery range (provided by a fuel level sensor/battery state monitor and on-board computer), and whether the expected duration of the trip is greater than the personalized recommended consecutive driving time. The system can also verify that candidate POIs will be open when the driver arrives. If either or both of these conditions holds, the system can perform a gas-station/EV charger and/or rest-stop search at optimal route segments and add one or more of the results as dynamic waypoints to the route.”), an information on whether a warning signal is received from the vehicle (Examiner notes that all signals set regarding driver drowsiness and low fuel additionally constitute warning signals), an information on whether a wiper is in operation, an information on whether a sunroof is open or closed, or a weight of a loaded cargo.
Regarding claim 3, Zender discloses wherein the determining the respective priorities of the plurality of surrounding search categories includes setting a priority (calculated scores) of a first surrounding search category related to the context information among the plurality of surrounding search categories to a highest level or a lowest level (para. [0054], “[w]hen the candidate waypoint(s) have been determined, the system can present 440 at least one candidate waypoint to the driver based on the scores for the candidate waypoints. For example, a list of all or a subset of the candidate waypoint may be presented to the driver, where the waypoints with the highest scores appear first, at the top of the list.”).
Regarding claim 4, Zender discloses wherein the determining the respective priorities of the plurality of surrounding search categories includes determining a priority related to each item of the first surrounding search category (para. [0034], “[t]he processor 220 can determine scores for a plurality of candidate waypoints based on the driver preference factors, and can cause the user interface 205 to present a list of candidate waypoints having the highest scores. The processor 220 can update the driver preferences based on a selection, via the user interface 205, of a candidate waypoint by the driver.” Examiner nots that a score is determined for each candidate waypoint).
Regarding claim 5, Zender discloses wherein the obtaining the context information indicating the situation of the passenger includes obtaining the context information using information about a current time, a real-time traffic situation, and a specific location (para. [0032], “[t]he navigation interface 215 is configured to determine a route of travel and determine positioning coordinates of the vehicle, which can be obtained from an on-board computer, or from a separate global positioning system (GPS) component.”; para. [0035], “[d]etermining whether a candidate waypoint is reachable can be based on an amount of fuel remaining in the vehicle, level of driver drowsiness, or whether an establishment at the candidate waypoint is open at an estimated time of arrival at the candidate waypoint.” Examine notes that arrival time is based on both a current location and associated time along with an anticipated rate of travel to a waypoint.).
Regarding claim 13, Zender discloses wherein the obtaining the context information indicating the situation of the passenger includes: determining whether a DTE is smaller than a third threshold value (para. [0024], “[t]he vehicle interface 110 is configured to determine an amount of fuel remaining in the vehicle, which the system 100 can use to determine and suggest waypoints for the driver.”; para. [0035], “determining 305 a set of candidate waypoints along the route of travel, and reducing 310 the set of candidate waypoints based on information regarding the vehicle or driver of the vehicle. Reducing the set of candidate waypoints can include, for example, removing a candidate waypoint from the set of candidate waypoints if the candidate waypoint is not reachable. Determining whether a candidate waypoint is reachable can be based on an amount of fuel remaining in the vehicle, level of driver drowsiness, or whether an establishment at the candidate waypoint is open at an estimated time of arrival at the candidate waypoint.”) ; and obtaining a seventh context information indicating that refueling or charging is required when the DTE is smaller than the third threshold value (para. [0021], “[t]he waypoint adjustment can be triggered not only by user requests (e.g., verbal or haptic interaction), but also by signals from in-car sensors (e.g., low fuel/battery detection, drowsiness detection). The waypoint adjustment can be performed whether there is a navigation route being followed by the driver, or when no route guidance is currently active.” The system is actively monitoring a situation related to the fuel/battery availability compared to a route to determine if a stop needs to be made. As addressed in the section under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the numbering of the thresholds (e.g., first, second, third…) is indefinite in view of how the claim is drafted. However, it is clear that the system of Zender is monitoring the amount of fuel remaining and comparing that to both a final destination and any potential fueling stops such that Zender only presents stop points that fall within the remaining fuel range/threshold. For example, it is presenting waystops in advance of the final destination indicating the remaining fuel is not enough to reach the destination. Additionally, the variability in cost of fuel required to reach the destination is a factor in ranking the refueling stops. See para. [0038]—[0053]).
Regarding claim 14, Zender discloses wherein the obtaining the context information indicating the situation of the passenger includes: determining whether a warning signal has been received from the vehicle (para. [0021], “[d]uring the trip, the system can perform context-aware monitoring that can add or adjust waypoints in response to changing circumstances. The waypoint adjustment can be triggered not only by user requests (e.g., verbal or haptic interaction), but also by signals from in-car sensors (e.g., low fuel/battery detection, drowsiness detection). The waypoint adjustment can be performed whether there is a navigation route being followed by the driver, or when no route guidance is currently active.” Waypoint adjustment is a context-aware monitoring system where the generation of way points is equivalent to an alert); and obtaining an eighth context information indicating that a maintenance of the vehicle is required when the warning signal has been received therefrom (para. [0021], “[t]he waypoint adjustment can be triggered not only by user requests (e.g., verbal or haptic interaction), but also by signals from in-car sensors (e.g., low fuel/battery detection, drowsiness detection). The waypoint adjustment can be performed whether there is a navigation route being followed by the driver, or when no route guidance is currently active.”; para. [0024], “[t]he vehicle interface 110 is configured to determine an amount of fuel remaining in the vehicle, which the system 100 can use to determine and suggest waypoints for the driver.”; para. [0035], “determining 305 a set of candidate waypoints along the route of travel, and reducing 310 the set of candidate waypoints based on information regarding the vehicle or driver of the vehicle. Reducing the set of candidate waypoints can include, for example, removing a candidate waypoint from the set of candidate waypoints if the candidate waypoint is not reachable. Determining whether a candidate waypoint is reachable can be based on an amount of fuel remaining in the vehicle, level of driver drowsiness, or whether an establishment at the candidate waypoint is open at an estimated time of arrival at the candidate waypoint.” As addressed in the section under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the numbering of the thresholds (e.g., first, second, third…) is indefinite in view of how the claim is drafted. However, the system is actively monitoring a situation related to the fuel/battery availability compared to a route to determine if a stop needs to be made. See para. [0038]—[0053]. Moreover, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, refueling a vehicle constitutes “maintenance” because it is required in order for the vehicle to perform.).
Regarding claim 18, Zender discloses [a] search category varying method performed by a computing device (para. [0022], “a system 100 for automatically determining waypoints along a vehicle route of travel… The example system 100 includes a user interface 105, vehicle interface 110, navigation interface 115, and a processor 120 in communication with the user interface 105, vehicle interface 110, and navigation interface 115.”), the method comprising: obtaining from a vehicle a vehicle information indicating a state of the vehicle (para. [0027], “[t]he processor 120 is configured to determine at least one candidate waypoint to add to the route of travel based on the amount of fuel remaining in the vehicle (or driver drowsiness) and driver preference factors. The driver preference factors can include, for example, a price factor or a convenience factor.”); obtaining a context information indicating a situation of a passenger using the vehicle information (para. [0027], “[t]he processor 120 is configured to determine at least one candidate waypoint to add to the route of travel based on the amount of fuel remaining in the vehicle (or driver drowsiness) and driver preference factors. The driver preference factors can include, for example, a price factor or a convenience factor.”); determining respective priorities of a plurality of surrounding search categories based on the context information (para. [0027], “[t]he processor 120 can determine scores for a plurality of candidate waypoints based on the driver preference factors, and can cause the user interface 105 to present a list of candidate waypoints having the highest scores.”); and displaying the plurality of surrounding search categories under the respective priorities (para. [0027], “[t]he processor 120 can determine scores for a plurality of candidate waypoints based on the driver preference factors, and can cause the user interface 105 to present a list of candidate waypoints having the highest scores.”).
Regarding claim 19, Zender et al. discloses wherein the vehicle information includes a vehicle location information, an information on whether a child lock is activated, a distance to empty (DTE) information indicating a fuel level (para. [0021], “[t]he waypoint adjustment can be triggered not only by user requests (e.g., verbal or haptic interaction), but also by signals from in-car sensors (e.g., low fuel/battery detection, drowsiness detection).”; para. [0030], “[t]he fuel system interface 210 is configured to determine an amount of fuel remaining in the vehicle, which the processor 220 can use to determine and suggest waypoints for the driver.”; para. [0036], “[i]n the case where a driver requests the system to navigate to a given destination, the system can assess whether the distance to the destination exceeds the current fuel/battery range (provided by a fuel level sensor/battery state monitor and on-board computer), and whether the expected duration of the trip is greater than the personalized recommended consecutive driving time. The system can also verify that candidate POIs will be open when the driver arrives. If either or both of these conditions holds, the system can perform a gas-station/EV charger and/or rest-stop search at optimal route segments and add one or more of the results as dynamic waypoints to the route.”), an information on whether a warning signal is received from the vehicle (Examiner notes that all signals set regarding driver drowsiness and low fuel additionally constitute warning signals), an information on whether a wiper is in operation, an information on whether a sunroof is open or closed, or a weight of a loaded cargo.
Regarding claim 20, Zender discloses wherein the determining the respective priorities of the plurality of surrounding search categories includes setting a priority (calculated scores) of a first surrounding search category related to the context information among the plurality of surrounding search categories to a highest level or a lowest level (para. [0054], “[w]hen the candidate waypoint(s) have been determined, the system can present 440 at least one candidate waypoint to the driver based on the scores for the candidate waypoints. For example, a list of all or a subset of the candidate waypoint may be presented to the driver, where the waypoints with the highest scores appear first, at the top of the list.”).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published WIPO Patent Application to Tsuyoshi (WO 2015045629 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Published US Patent Application to Hokari (US 20180232666 A1).
Regarding claim 10, while Tsuyoshi is directed to assessing an interest intensity for a plurality of points of interest, Tsuyoshi does not take into account whether or not a current time is meal time. However, Hokari, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to processing apparatus which assesses points of interest relative to a user location, teaches the deficient limitations.
For example, Hokari states the following disclosure constitutes prior art as described in Japanese Patent Application 2005-037143: “a car navigation apparatus, in order to set a route on which a number of restaurants are located along the road as a guiding route during a mealtime, in the case where a meal start time is included between a time at which the guiding route is searched for and an arrival time to a destination, searching for a route on which a larger number of restaurants are located along the road through which a user is to pass at the meal start time.” (Hokari, para. [0004]). One embodiment of the disclosure of Hokari includes “estimating a location where the mobile object that travels while carrying the user is traveling during a “mealtime” that corresponds to a period of time appropriate for meal and searching for restaurants located within a first distance from the location and located a second distance away from at least one of the point of departure and the destination of the mobile object, it becomes possible to search for a new restaurant while making a side trip from the point of departure to the destination during travel.” (Hokari, para. [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the meal-time assessment feature of Hokari in the navigational system of Tsuyoshi which is directed to ranking points of interest including restaurants. The meal-time assessment feature would work the same as combined in Tsuyoshi as it does separately. The addition of the feature would provide for the predictable result of a time-based assessment feature which is usable in identifying points of interest.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6—9, 11—12, and 15—17 are allowable over the prior art of record; however, all of the provided claims (e.g., 1—20) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and multiple claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Published US Patent Application to Allamsetty et al., (US 20240211522 A1) which describes a computer system used to determine that an electric vehicle needs to be charged, identify charging locations, and rank the charging stations based on required attributes;
Published US Patent Application to Li et al. (US 20230004614 A1) which is directed to a navigational device for displaying points of interest including precited popularity of a given location;
Issued US Patent to Beaurepaire (US 10649537 B2) which is directed to a navigational system for mapping points of interest according to filterable features which are grouped by context information;
Published US Patent Application to Liu (US 20210390124 A1) which is directed to a navigational system and display for rendering a subset of point of interest data (e.g., target point of interest) selected from a larger point of interest dataset;
Issued US Patent to Suzuki (US 10866957 B2) which is directed to a prioritization calculator used to determine which point of interest information to display to a user (e.g., according to a point calculator); and
Issued US Patent to Bache (US 10783205 B2) the generation of transitory contacts to be presented to a user according to a plurality of context considerations including meal-times and location.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to URSULA NORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7 AM to 4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/U.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676