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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 11/24/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
1. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krainer (US 11014533 B2).
6. Regarding Claim 1, Krainer teaches a method for operating a navigation system, the method being performed by a computing device, the method comprising (Krainer: [Column 5, Lines 64-67; and Column 6, Line 1]):
Adding at least one routine widget indicating a routine of a user to a widget slot of the navigation system (Krainer: [Column 8, Lines 5-12], [Column 8, Lines 20-32], and [Column 11, Lines 32-44]);
Determining an execution order of the at least one routine widget (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 39-44] and [Column 12, Lines 34-44]);
And executing the at least one routine widget based on the determined execution order to perform an operation corresponding to the routine of the user (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 39-44]).
7. Regarding Claim 2, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches the routine of the user includes at least one of a personal schedule of the user, contents periodically played by the user, a place periodically visited by the user, or a periodic SNS (Social Network Service) activity of the user, wherein the at least one routine widget includes detailed information about the routine (Krainer: [Column 8, Lines 20-32] and [Column 11, Lines 39-44]).
8. Regarding Claim 3, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches when detailed information of the at least one routine widget is modified in a user device and the at least one routine widget includes a plurality of routine widgets, the modification is equally applied to the plurality of routine widgets added to the widget slot (Krainer: [Column 7, Lines 11-21]).
9. Regarding Claim 5, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches that an execution order of a routine widget related to a schedule, among the plurality of routine widgets, has priority over an execution order of other routine widgets of the plurality of routine widgets (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 32-44]);
Determining an execution order of a routine widget including temporal information, among the other routine widgets, based on a temporal order thereof (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 39-44]);
And determining an execution order of a routine widget free of the temporal information, among the other routine widgets, based on a past routine pattern of the user (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 57-67; Column 12, Lines 1-3]).
10. Regarding Claim 9, Krainer teaches a computing device comprising (Krainer: [Column 5, Lines 64-67; and Column 6, Line 1]):
A processor; and a memory storing therein instructions, wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the instructions cause the processor to (Krainer: [Column 1, Lines 44-56]):
Add at least one routine widget indicating a routine of a user to a widget slot of a navigation system (Krainer: [Column 8, Lines 5-12], [Column 8, Lines 20-32], and [Column 11, Lines 32-44]);
Determine an execution order of the at least routine widget (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 39-44] and [Column 12, Lines 34-44]);
And execute the at least routine widget based on the determined execution order to perform an operation corresponding to the routine of the user (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 39-44]).
11. Regarding Claim 11, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 9, and further, teaches determining that an execution order of a routine widget related to a schedule, among the plurality of routine widgets, has priority over an execution order of other routine widgets of the plurality of routine widgets (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 32-44]);
Determining an execution order of a routine widgets including temporal information, among the other routine widgets, based on a temporal order thereof (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 39-44]);
And determining an execution order of a routine widget free of the temporal information, among the other routine widgets, based on a past routine pattern of the user (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 57-67; Column 12, Lines 1-3]).
12. Regarding Claim 15, Krainer teaches a system comprising (Krainer: [Column 5, Lines 64-67; and Column 6, Line 1]):
A mobility apparatus (Krainer: [Column 4, Lines 9-10]);
A user device configured to generate a plurality of routine widgets indicating a routine of a user (Krainer: [Column 2, Lines 56-63]);
And a navigation system configured to (Krainer: [Column 5, Lines 64-67; and Column 6, Line 1]):
Load and add the plurality of routine widgets to a widget slot (Krainer: [Column 8, Lines 5-12], [Column 8, Lines 20-32], and [Column 11, Lines 32-44]);
Determine an execution order of the plurality of routine widgets (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 39-44] and [Column 12, Lines 34-44]);
And execute the plurality of routine widgets based on the determined execution order to perform a corresponding operation thereto (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 39-44]).
13. Regarding Claim 16, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further, teaches when detailed information of the plurality of routine widgets is modified in the user device, the modification is equally applied to the plurality of routine widgets added to the widget slot of the navigation system (Krainer: [Column 7, Lines 11-21]).
14. Regarding Claim 17, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further, teaches to determine that an execution order of a routine widget related to a schedule, among the plurality of routine widgets, has priority over an execution order of other routine widgets of the plurality of routine widgets (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 32-44]);
Determine an execution order of a routine widget including temporal information, among the plurality of routine widgets, based on a temporal order thereof (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 39-44]);
And determine an execution order of a routine widget free of the temporal information, among the plurality of routine widgets, based on a past routine pattern of the user (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 57-67; Column 12, Lines 1-3]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krainer (US 11014533 B2).
19. Regarding Claim 4, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches loading the at least one routine widget from a user device (Krainer: [Column 8, Lines 5-12]).
Krainer does not explicitly teach dragging the at least one loaded routine widget to the widget slot. However, Krainer teaches downloading the widgets onto the user's device in [Column 8, Lines 5-12]. It would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art to customize the location of the loaded routine widget by dragging the widget into a slot absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the loaded widget in its original location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to drag the at least one loaded widget to the widget slot as similarly shown in [Column 8, Lines 5-12] use of the user downloading a widget on their device to appear in a widget slot because it provides the benefit the user accessing the widget from the device.
20. Regarding Claim 10, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 9, and further, teaches loading the at least one routine widget from a user device (Krainer: [Column 8, Lines 5-12]).
Krainer does not explicitly teach dragging the at least one loaded routine widget to the widget slot. However, Krainer teaches downloading the widgets onto the user's device in [Column 8, Lines 5-12]. It would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art to customize the location of the loaded routine widget by dragging the widget into a slot absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the loaded widget in its original location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to drag the at least one loaded widget to the widget slot as similarly shown in [Column 8, Lines 5-12] use of the user downloading a widget on their device to appear in a widget slot because it provides the benefit the user accessing the widget from the device.
21. Claims 6, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krainer (US 11014533 B2) in view of Bortolussi (US 20180112995 A1).
22. Regarding Claim 6, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to a schedule, recommending a destination or stopover point corresponding to the schedule (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 39-44]).
Krainer fails to explicitly teach guiding the user along a route to the recommended destination or stopover point in response to an approval to the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bortolussi teaches when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to a schedule, recommending a destination or stopover point corresponding to the schedule; and guiding the user along a route to the recommended destination or stopover point in response to an approval to the recommendation (Bortolussi: [0149] and [1065]).
Krainer and Bortolussi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krainer to incorporate the teachings of Bortolussi to guide the user along a route to the recommended destination in response to an approval of the recommendation because it provides the benefit of increased recommendation functionality. Bortolussi improves Krainer because it guides the user to the new location after it has been recommended.
23. Regarding Claim 12, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 9, and further, teaches when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to a schedule, recommending a destination or stopover point corresponding to the schedule (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 39-44]).
Krainer fails to explicitly teach guiding the user along a route to the recommended destination or stopover point in response to an approval to the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bortolussi teaches when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to a schedule, recommending a destination or stopover point corresponding to the schedule; and guiding the user along a route to the recommended destination or stopover point in response to an approval to the recommendation (Bortolussi: [0149] and [1065]).
Krainer and Bortolussi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krainer to incorporate the teachings of Bortolussi to guide the user along a route to the recommended destination in response to an approval of the recommendation because it provides the benefit of increased recommendation functionality. Bortolussi improves Krainer because it guides the user to the new location after it has been recommended.
24. Regarding Claim 18, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further, teaches when a routine widget among the plurality of routine widgets is related to a schedule, recommend a destination or stopover point corresponding to the schedule (Krainer: [Column 11, Lines 39-44]).
Krainer fails to explicitly teach to guide the user along a route to the recommended destination or stopover point in response to an approval to the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bortolussi teaches when a routine widget among the plurality of routine widgets is related to a schedule, recommend a destination or stopover point corresponding to the schedule; and guide the user along a route to the recommended destination or stopover point in response to an approval to the recommendation (Bortolussi: [0149] and [1065]).
Krainer and Bortolussi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krainer to incorporate the teachings of Bortolussi to guide the user along a route to the recommended destination in response to an approval of the recommendation because it provides the benefit of increased recommendation functionality. Bortolussi improves Krainer because it guides the user to the new location after it has been recommended.
25. Claims 7, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krainer (US 11014533 B2) in view of Kim (US 20210342864 A1).
26. Regarding Claim 7, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Krainer fails to explicitly teach when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to contents, recommending playing the contents corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and controlling a user device or a vehicle to play the recommended contents in response to an approval to the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to contents, recommending playing the contents corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and controlling a user device or a vehicle to play the recommended contents in response to an approval to the recommendation (Kim: [0021] and [0041]).
Krainer and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krainer to incorporate the teachings of Kim to recommend playing contents in response to an approval of the recommendation because it provides the benefit of using recommendations for increased convenience in driving situations as explicitly taught in [0002] of Kim.
27. Regarding Claim 13, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 9.
Krainer fails to explicitly teach when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to contents, recommending playing the contents corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and controlling a user device or a vehicle to play the recommended contents in response to an approval to the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to contents, recommending playing the contents corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and controlling a user device or a vehicle to play the recommended contents in response to an approval to the recommendation (Kim: [0021] and [0041]).
Krainer and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krainer to incorporate the teachings of Kim to recommend playing contents in response to an approval of the recommendation because it provides the benefit of using recommendations for increased convenience in driving situation as explicitly taught in [0002] of Kim.
28. Regarding Claim 19, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 15.
Krainer fails to explicitly teach when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to contents, recommend playing the contents corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and control a user device or a vehicle to play the recommended contents in response to an approval to the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to contents, recommend playing the contents corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and control a user device or a vehicle to play the recommended contents in response to an approval to the recommendation (Kim: [0021] and [0041]).
Krainer and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krainer to incorporate the teachings of Kim to recommend playing contents in response to an approval of the recommendation because it provides the benefit of using recommendations for increased convenience in driving situations as explicitly taught in [0002] of Kim.
29. Claims 7, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krainer (US 11014533 B2) in view of Caballero (ES 2713354 A1).
30. Regarding Claim 8, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Krainer fails to explicitly teach when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to SNS (Social Network Service), recommending checking a new post on the SNS corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and controlling a user device to read the new post aloud in response to an approval to the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Caballero teaches when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to SNS (Social Network Service), recommending checking a new post on the SNS corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and controlling a user device to read the new post aloud in response to an approval to the recommendation (Caballero: [Page 4, Lines 21-25] and [Page 5, Lines 4-8]).
Krainer and Caballero are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krainer to incorporate the teachings of Caballero to check for a new post on the SNS and control the user device to read the post aloud in response to an approval recommendation because it provides the benefit of informing the driver of the notification without putting them in danger by taking attention off of the road. This ensures the user is attentive to the road instead of the display, as explicitly explained in [Page 8, Lines 23-26] of Caballero.
31. Regarding Claim 14, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 9.
Krainer fails to explicitly teach when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to SNS (Social Network Service), recommending checking a new post on the SNS corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and controlling a user device to read the new post aloud in response to an approval to the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Caballero teaches when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to SNS (Social Network Service), recommending checking a new post on the SNS corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and controlling a user device to read the new post aloud in response to an approval to the recommendation (Caballero: [Page 4, Lines 21-25] and [Page 5, Lines 4-8]).
Krainer and Caballero are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krainer to incorporate the teachings of Caballero to check for a new post on the SNS and control the user device to read the post aloud in response to an approval recommendation because it provides the benefit of informing the driver of the notification without putting them in danger by taking attention off of the road. This ensures the user is attentive to the road instead of the display, as explicitly explained in [Page 8, Lines 23-26] of Caballero.
32. Regarding Claim 20, Krainer remains as applied above in Claim 9.
Krainer fails to explicitly teach when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to SNS (Social Network Service), recommend checking a new post on the SNS corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and control a user device to read the new post aloud in response to an approval to the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Caballero teaches when the at least one routine widget is a routine widget related to SNS (Social Network Service), recommend checking a new post on the SNS corresponding to the at least one routine widget; and control a user device to read the new post aloud in response to an approval to the recommendation (Caballero: [Page 4, Lines 21-25] and [Page 5, Lines 4-8]).
Krainer and Caballero are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krainer to incorporate the teachings of Caballero to check for a new post on the SNS and control the user device to read the post aloud in response to an approval recommendation because it provides the benefit of informing the driver of the notification without putting them in danger by taking attention off of the road. This ensures the user is attentive to the road instead of the display, as explicitly explained in [Page 8, Lines 23-26] of Caballero.
Conclusion
33. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
So (US 20210323406 A1)
34. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663