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 Application
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are independent.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 have been amended.
Claims 10-12 have been added.
This FINAL action is in response to “Amendments and Remarks” received on 13 July 2026.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed 13 July 2026, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and were not wholly persuasive. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the claim interpretations are maintained and further modified in view of amendments.
The language of claims 1 and 2 are replete with limitations that contain a generic placeholder (e.g., acquirer, searcher, calculator) plus functional language without reciting additional structure for performing the claimed function.
With respect to claim objections, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the claim objection is withdrawn.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The claims encompass mental processes such as planning a trajectory and estimating energy economy of a vehicle which can be accomplished in the human mind, or with pen and paper. Additional limitations that include hardware merely automate the mental processes, therefore acting as a generic computer acting in an ordinary capacity. Additionally, acquiring steps combined with hardware limitations are generics means for data gathering, which is a form of insignificant, extra-solution activity.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Final Office Action
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three-prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) are:
Claim limitation “a vehicle position data acquirer configured to acquire vehicle position data indicating a position of the vehicle” in claim 1 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted as “the processor 100 of the vehicle navigation apparatus 1 according to the example embodiment may include an own vehicle position data acquirer 110, a traveling candidate route searcher 120, an external data acquirer 130, a battery remaining capacity calculator 140, an avoidance route searcher 150, and a controller 160” on page 7 lines 11-14.
Claim limitation “a traveling candidate route searcher configured to search for traveling candidate routes from a current position of the vehicle to a destination of the vehicle based on the data on the position of the vehicle” in claim 1 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted as “the processor 100 of the vehicle navigation apparatus 1 according to the example embodiment may include an own vehicle position data acquirer 110, a traveling candidate route searcher 120, an external data acquirer 130, a battery remaining capacity calculator 140, an avoidance route searcher 150, and a controller 160” on page 7 lines 11-14.
Claim limitation “an external data acquirer configured to acquire external data” in claim 1 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted as “the processor 100 of the vehicle navigation apparatus 1 according to the example embodiment may include an own vehicle position data acquirer 110, a traveling candidate route searcher 120, an external data acquirer 130, a battery remaining capacity calculator 140, an avoidance route searcher 150, and a controller 160” on page 7 lines 11-14.
Claim limitation “a battery remaining capacity calculator configured to calculate, for each of the searched traveling candidate routes, a remaining capacity of a battery” in claim 1 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted as “the processor 100 of the vehicle navigation apparatus 1 according to the example embodiment may include an own vehicle position data acquirer 110, a traveling candidate route searcher 120, an external data acquirer 130, a battery remaining capacity calculator 140, an avoidance route searcher 150, and a controller 160” on page 7 lines 11-14.
Claim limitation “a vehicle position data acquirer configured to acquire vehicle position data indicating a position of the vehicle” in claim 2 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted as “the processor 100 of the vehicle navigation apparatus 1 according to the example embodiment may include an own vehicle position data acquirer 110, a traveling candidate route searcher 120, an external data acquirer 130, a battery remaining capacity calculator 140, an avoidance route searcher 150, and a controller 160” on page 7 lines 11-14.
Claim limitation “a traveling candidate route searcher configured to search for traveling candidate routes from a current position of the vehicle to a destination of the vehicle based on the data on the position of the vehicle” in claim 2 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted as “the processor 100 of the vehicle navigation apparatus 1 according to the example embodiment may include an own vehicle position data acquirer 110, a traveling candidate route searcher 120, an external data acquirer 130, a battery remaining capacity calculator 140, an avoidance route searcher 150, and a controller 160” on page 7 lines 11-14.
Claim limitation “an external data acquirer configured to acquire external data” in claim 2 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted as “the processor 100 of the vehicle navigation apparatus 1 according to the example embodiment may include an own vehicle position data acquirer 110, a traveling candidate route searcher 120, an external data acquirer 130, a battery remaining capacity calculator 140, an avoidance route searcher 150, and a controller 160” on page 7 lines 11-14.
Claim limitation “a battery remaining capacity calculator configured to calculate, for each of the searched traveling candidate routes, a remaining capacity of a battery” in claim 2 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted as “the processor 100 of the vehicle navigation apparatus 1 according to the example embodiment may include an own vehicle position data acquirer 110, a traveling candidate route searcher 120, an external data acquirer 130, a battery remaining capacity calculator 140, an avoidance route searcher 150, and a controller 160” on page 7 lines 11-14.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 2 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, Claim 2 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 8 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, Claim 8 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 9 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, Claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 8 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 8 recites: A vehicle navigation apparatus to be applied to a vehicle, the vehicle navigation apparatus comprising
circuitry configured to
acquire vehicle position data indicating a position of the vehicle;
search for traveling candidate routes, from a current position of the vehicle to a destination of the vehicle based on the vehicle position data;
acquire external data,
and calculate, for each of the searched traveling candidate routes, a remaining capacity of a battery that is upon arrival of the vehicle at the destination of a corresponding one of the searched traveling candidate routes, based on a traveling condition and the acquired external data, wherein
the circuitry is further configured to
acquire the temperature data, as the external data, for a region from the current position to the destination;
associate the temperature data with sections of each of the searched traveling candidate routes based on map data and an expected passage time at which the vehicle is expected to pass through each of the section;
determine, for each of the searched traveling route candidate routes, whether that searched traveling candidate route includes one or more low-temperature sections, each low-temperature section being a respective one of the sections for which a temperature at the expected passage time for the respective one of the sections is equal or lower than a predetermined temperature;
calculate, for each of the searched traveling candidate routes determined to include one or more low-temperature sections, a travel time of the vehicle through the one or more low-temperature sections of that searched traveling candidate route;
calculate the remaining capacity of the battery upon arrival of the vehicle at the destination for each of the searched traveling candidate routes based on the temperature data;
set, as search targets, (i) one or more of the searched traveling candidate routes determined not to include any low-temperature section and (ii) one or more of the searched traveling candidate routes determined to include one or more low-temperature sections and having the calculated travel time equal to or less than a predetermined time, and search from the search targets, for one or more traveling candidate routes in which the remaining capacity of the battery upon arrival at the destination is equal to or more than a predetermined amount.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “calculate”, “search”, “determine”, and “set” steps encompass a user to estimate a remaining vehicle energy level across various routes. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “circuitry configured to”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “circuitry” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the acquiring, searching, determining, setting, and calculating steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the circuitry is claimed generically and operates in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a controller. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of searching for candidate routes and calculating a remaining battery level is a mere definition that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only compares data where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that acquiring data and using circuitry, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use circuitry to perform the process. In particular, the acquiring steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a controller or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 8 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the apparatus, the circuitry amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of receiving data and dividing data, and determinizing errors, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of receiving the data and determining errors are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the methods to search for candidate travelling routes and calculating distance to empty (DTE) for electric vehicles is known. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, Claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Further Claims 1, 2, and 9 are not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 3-7 and 10-12 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 1, 8, and 15.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle to take an optimal route. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IZCALLI ANDRE RIOS-AGUIRRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 - 17:00 EST.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/I.A.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights