DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 6/18/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8-11 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/18/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
On page 9 of Remarks filed 6/18/2026, with respect to step 2A, prong one, the Applicant contends that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, given that a person observing a vehicle cannot collect electronic vehicle data, maintain an automated data structure in memory that accumulates frequency counts over multiple trips, execute an automated state transition from a preliminary state to a formal driving pattern state upon crossing a mathematical threshold, and dynamically switch a physical image output device between two distinct display modes.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s arguments rely on an improper narrow reading of the claims that is inconsistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation standard required during examination. Per MPEP 2111, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Further, the subject matter eligibility analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 must be applied to the claims as written, not as the Applicant desires them to be limited by importing unrecited features from the specification (see MPEP 2106).
Claim 1 recites the abstract ideas of “determining, in response to a vehicle starting to drive, whether a first condition for initiating a background route guidance is met,” “determining whether a second condition for switching the background route guidance to a foreground route guidance is met,” and “a preliminary driving pattern is converted to the driving pattern when a cumulative frequency of the preliminary driving patterns is greater than or equal to a threshold value,” as discussed in detail in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 below.
For example, the limitation of “determining, in response to a vehicle starting to drive, whether a first condition for initiating a background route guidance is met” may reasonably encompass the mental process of a person, such as a passenger of a vehicle, recognizing a familiar route the moment the vehicle starts moving and deciding to silently monitor the route. The limitation of “determining whether a second condition for switching the background route guidance to a foreground route guidance is met” may reasonably encompass the mental process of the same person noticing a change, so as to make a decision to ask the driver whether they want turn-by-turn directions. The limitation of “a preliminary driving pattern is converted to the driving pattern when a cumulative frequency of the preliminary driving patterns is greater than or equal to a threshold value” may reasonably encompass the mental process of a person tallying how often a person takes a route on paper and then classifying the route as an official pattern after a predetermined number of times.
Per claim 1, the above discussed mental process abstract ideas do not incorporate the computer hardware (e.g., “image output device”) contended by the Applicant, which are evaluated in step 2A prong two. Per claim 10, the recitation of the “memory” and “processor” as executing the abstract ideas is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. processor) as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. determine whether a first or second condition is met, determine a first driving pattern corresponding to the current vehicle data, convert a preliminary driving pattern to the driving pattern) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
On page 10, with respect to step 2A, prong one, the Applicant further contends that the cumulative frequency accumulation and preliminary-to-formal pattern conversion recited in claim 1 constitute an algorithmic data transformation maintained over multiple driving sessions, and that displaying a background route guidance interface and displaying a foreground route guidance interface through an image output device are not mental acts, but hardware-driven graphical user interface operations performed by a computing processor.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the claims are interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (see MPEP 2111), and limitations from the specification are not imported into the claim language. No claim language has been provided that incorporate active vehicle control operations or processing of data received from specialized vehicle sensors. For example, while the Applicant contends that an algorithmic data transformation is maintained over multiple driving sessions, the claim language merely recites “a preliminary driving pattern is converted to the driving pattern when a cumulative frequency of the preliminary driving patterns is greater than or equal to a threshold value,” which encompasses converting generally recited data (i.e. “preliminary driving pattern”) into different generally recited data (i.e. “driving pattern”) upon a generally recited condition (i.e. “when a cumulative frequency of the preliminary driving patterns is greater than or equal to a threshold value”).
As discussed above, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of generic computer hardware does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. The “display” elements are evaluated in step 2A, prong two as a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
On pages 10-11 of Remarks, with respect to step 2A, prong two, the Applicant contends that the claims are integrated into a practical application for providing a meaningful improvement to a GUI for Driver-Assistance Systems. Specifically, the Applicant contends that the claimed invention solves a technology-specific problem through a structured, dual mode user interface arrangement.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not confer eligibility. The core of the claim is simply gathering data, determining whether data matches a particular pattern based on a cumulative historical frequency, and conditionally presenting different displays based on user input. Merely providing the display on a GUI for Driver-Assistance Systems (not claimed) is conventional post-solution activity that does not transform the underlying abstract idea into a patent eligible invention. An invention can be useful or novel, while still remaining directed to an ineligible judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.01.
Further, the “image output device” is recited as generic computer hardware operating in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to display data), which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
On page 11 of Remarks, with respect to step 2A, prong two, the Applicant contends that the claims provide a specific technological mechanism (the cumulative frequency calculation and automated preliminary-to-formal pattern conversion) to ensure the system reliably and objectively identifies which routes are sufficiently familiar to justify minimizing the interface display. The Applicant further contends that the mathematical/mental building blocks are tightly bound to a physical vehicle environment to improve driver safety and display operation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Performing mathematical calculations and displaying information is not a specific technological mechanism. To integrate an abstract idea into a practical application, the claim must improve the functioning of the computer, display, or vehicle system. Merely tracking how many times a pattern occurs and then changing its descriptor from “preliminary” to “formal” does not improve the operation of the computer, display, or vehicle. The claim merely recites “a preliminary driving pattern is converted to the driving pattern when a cumulative frequency of the preliminary driving patterns is greater than or equal to a threshold value,” which is provided as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
As discussed above, none of the generally recited data is acquired from particular specialized vehicle sensors or generated by performing active control operations of the vehicle. The data is recited unbound from the physical vehicle environment.
On pages 11-12 of Remarks, with respect to step 2B, the Applicant contends that the claims recite significantly more, given that the specific ordered combination of elements is neither conventional nor routine in the automotive navigation field.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The ordered combination of elements merely reflect the desired workflow, not a technical solution. Arranging the elements of an abstract idea in a particular order does not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, an invention can be considered novel while still remaining directed to an ineligible abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.01.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, new references have been combined with Ettinger to teach the contended limitations.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office action, except within the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections which follow specific formatting guidelines detailed therein.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites determining whether there is a first driving pattern corresponding to the current vehicle data, such that claim 3 references the state of in response to the determining that there is the first driving pattern, and claim 4 references the state of whether there is the first driving pattern... The phrasing of these limitations is not clear and may be more simply constructed as “determining whether a first driving pattern corresponds to the current vehicle state,” with respect to claim 1, such that claim 3 recites “in response to determining the first driving pattern corresponds to the current vehicle state,” and claim 4 recites “determining whether the first driving pattern corresponds to the current vehicle data based on…” Claim 10 is objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 6 recites determining whether there is a second driving pattern corresponding to the new driving data. The phrasing of this limitation is not clear and may be more simply constructed as “determining whether a second driving pattern corresponds to the new driving data.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 and 3-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of the preliminary driving patterns. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, only one singular “preliminary driving pattern” is claimed. A plurality of preliminary driving patterns cannot be considered an inherent feature of the method. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claim 1 recites wherein the background route guidance comprises displaying a background route guidance interface through an image output device,…wherein, in the background route guidance, guidance on a route, guidance on a destination and guidance on an estimated arrival time are not displayed. This limitation defines the “background route guidance” as “displaying a background route guidance interface;” however, the subsequent limitations define “guidance on a route” and “guidance on a destination” as being “not displayed.” One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably interpret the “background route guidance” as “displaying a background route guidance interface,” when the route guidance functions (i.e. “guidance on a route” and “guidance on a destination”) are defined as being not displayed. The terms seem to conflict with their claimed functions.
Further, because the claim only defines what the “background route guidance” does not display, without defining what it does display, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine the scope of the “background route guidance.”
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of wherein initiating of the foreground route guidance comprises displaying the guidance on the route, guidance on the destination, and guidance on the estimated arrival time on the background route guidance interface, while claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, recites wherein initiating the background route guidance comprises displaying a background route guidance interface.
Given that “initiating the background route guidance” is defined as including the “background route guidance interface,” while not displaying “guidance on a route, guidance on a destination and guidance on an estimated arrival time” in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably interpret how “initiating the foreground route guidance” also includes the “background route guidance interface” while displaying “guidance on the route, guidance on the destination, and guidance on the estimated arrival time.”
Claims 3-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of claim 1 by dependency.
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 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis of Claim 1
Claim 1. A method of presenting driving information, the method comprising:
determining, in response to a vehicle starting to drive, whether a first condition for initiating a background route guidance is met;
initiating the background route guidance, in response to meeting of the first condition;
determining whether a second condition for switching the background route guidance to a foreground route guidance is met;
receiving, in response to meeting of the second condition, a user input indicating whether to initiate the foreground route guidance; and
initiating, in response to the receiving of the user input, the foreground route guidance,
wherein determining whether the first condition is met comprises:
collecting current vehicle data; and
determining whether there is a first driving pattern corresponding to the current vehicle data,
wherein a driving pattern includes information regarding a cumulative frequency of times the driving pattern has occurred,
wherein a preliminary driving pattern is converted to the driving pattern when a cumulative frequency of the preliminary driving patterns is greater than or equal to a threshold value,
wherein initiating the background route guidance comprises displaying a background route guidance interface through an image output device,
wherein initiating the foreground route guidance comprises displaying a foreground route guidance interface through the image output device, and
wherein, in the background route guidance, guidance on a route, guidance on a destination and guidance on an estimated arrival time are not displayed.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of determining, in response to a vehicle starting to drive, whether a first condition for initiating a background route guidance is met. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “first condition” is data representing a condition. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “background route guidance,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data unrelated to route guidance, as defined in a subsequent limitation. The limitation of “in response to a vehicle starting to drive” does not require particular vehicle-related sensors to detect controlled operations of a vehicle and encompasses a person observing a vehicle starting to drive.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. vehicle drive state and a first condition) and forming a simple observations and evaluations (i.e. determine whether a first condition is met). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of determining whether a second condition for switching the background route guidance to a foreground route guidance is met. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “second condition” is data representative of a condition. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “foreground route guidance,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representing instructions for a route.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. second condition) and forming a simple observations and evaluations (i.e. determining whether a second condition is met). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of determining whether there is a first driving pattern corresponding to the current vehicle data. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “first driving pattern” is data representative of a driving pattern. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “current vehicle data,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is current data associated with a vehicle and does not require particular sensors or active control operations of the vehicle. This limitation encompasses a person merely observing a vehicle and identifying a driving pattern.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. current vehicle data) and forming a simple observations and evaluations (i.e. determining whether a first driving pattern corresponds to the current vehicle data). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of a preliminary driving pattern is converted to the driving pattern when a cumulative frequency of the preliminary driving patterns is greater than or equal to a threshold value. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “preliminary driving pattern” is data representative of a driving pattern. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “cumulative frequency,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of a cumulative frequency associated with the generally recited data (i.e. “preliminary driving patterns”), and the “threshold value” is merely a data value. No details are claimed with respect to the conversion of generally recited data (i.e. “preliminary driving pattern”) to different generally recited data (i.e. “driving pattern”), and therefore, a simple conversion known to one of ordinary skill may be reasonably performed by a human using a pen and paper.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. preliminary driving pattern and its associated cumulative frequency) and forming a simple observations and evaluations (i.e. converting a preliminary driving pattern to a driving pattern when its cumulative frequency is greater than or equal to a threshold). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception 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 potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional element of initiating the background route guidance, in response to meeting of the first condition.
The “initiating” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general initiating background guidance) upon a generally recited condition (i.e. in response to meeting the first condition) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “background route guidance” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “background route guidance” is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The claim recites additional element of receiving, in response to meeting of the second condition, a user input indicating whether to initiate the foreground route guidance.
The “receiving” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general receiving of a user input) and amounts to mere data gathering upon a generally recited condition (i.e. meeting the second condition), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim recites additional element of initiating, in response to the receiving of the user input, the foreground route guidance.
The “initiating” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general initiating foreground route guidance) upon a generally recited condition (i.e. in response to receiving the user input) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “foreground route guidance” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “foreground route guidance” is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The claim recites additional element of collecting current vehicle data.
The “collecting” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general collecting of current vehicle data) and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim recites additional element of a driving pattern includes information regarding a cumulative frequency of times the driving pattern has occurred.
Further limiting the “driving pattern” to include information regarding a cumulative frequency of times the driving pattern has occurred represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
The claim recites additional elements of:
displaying a background route guidance interface through an image output device, and
displaying a foreground route guidance interface through the image output device.
The “displaying” steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general displaying of a background or foreground route guidance interface) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “image output device” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “image output device” is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The claim recites additional element of in the background route guidance, guidance on a route, guidance on a destination and guidance on an estimated arrival time are not displayed.
Further limiting the “background route guidance” to not display guidance on a route, guidance on a destination and guidance on an estimated arrival time represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the initiating, receiving, collecting, and displaying steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites user input and guidance operations as being implemented in common computing devices, and the specification does not provide any indication that the input or display requires specialized hardware or that the current vehicle data requires specialized vehicle sensors. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014), indicate that storing and retrieving information in memory, and receiving or transmitting data over a network are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 3-9 and 11
Dependent claims 3-9 and 11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites the additional elements of the determining whether the first condition is met comprises:
calculating, in response to the determining that there is the first driving pattern, estimated driving data according to the first driving pattern; and
determining whether driving according to the estimated driving data is appropriate.
The “calculating” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first driving pattern and determining that there is a first driving pattern) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. calculating estimated driving data). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “determining” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. estimated driving data) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determining whether driving according to the estimated driving data is appropriate). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 3 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of the current vehicle data comprises information about a location of a current vehicle, a day of the week, and time, and the first driving pattern comprises information about a starting point, a day of the week, and a driving start time, and whether there is the first driving pattern corresponding to the current vehicle data is determined based on whether pieces of information in the current vehicle data and the first driving pattern are identical to each other.
The “determining” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. current vehicle data and first driving pattern) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determining whether pieces of information in the current vehicle data and the first driving pattern are identical to each other). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Further limiting the “current vehicle data” to include information about a location of a current vehicle, a day of the week, and time and the “first driving pattern” to include information about a starting point, a day of the week, and a driving start time represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 4 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of the second condition comprises at least one of an increase in an estimated arrival time at a destination by a threshold value or more when driving along the route of the first driving pattern, deviation of the vehicle from the route of the first driving pattern, and generation of a road traffic message on the route of the first driving pattern.
Further limiting the “second condition” to include an increase in an estimated arrival time at a destination by a threshold value or more when driving along the route of the first driving pattern, deviation of the vehicle from the route of the first driving pattern, or generation of a road traffic message on the route of the first driving pattern represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of:
collecting new driving data; and
determining whether there is a second driving pattern corresponding to the new driving data.
The “determining” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. new driving data) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determining whether there is a second driving pattern). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “collecting” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general collecting of new driving data) and amounts to mere data collection, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of updating, in response to the presence of the second driving pattern, the second driving pattern based on the new driving data, and generating, in response to the absence of the second driving pattern, a new driving pattern based on the new driving data.
The “updating” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. presence of the second driving pattern and new driving data) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. updating the second driving pattern). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “generating” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. absence of the second driving pattern and new driving data) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. generating a new driving pattern). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 7 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of the receiving of the user input indicating whether to initiate the foreground route guidance comprises displaying a foreground route guidance switch object that is interactable with the user, on the background route guidance interface.
The “displaying” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general display of a foreground route guidance switch object) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “switch object.” Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the switch object is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 8 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the additional elements of the initiating of the foreground route guidance comprises displaying the guidance on the route, guidance on the destination, and guidance on the estimated arrival time on the background route guidance interface.
The “displaying” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general display of guidance on the route, guidance on the destination, and guidance on the estimated arrival time) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “displaying.” Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the displaying step is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 9 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 11 recites additional elements of a computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing the method of claim 1 to execute on a computer.
The “computer” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computer. The computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the claimed steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 11 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
101 Analysis of Claim 10
Claim 10. An apparatus for presenting driving information, the apparatus comprising:
a memory storing at least one program;
a processor configured to operate by executing the at least one program, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine, in response to a vehicle starting to drive, whether a first condition for initiating a background route guidance is met;
initiate the background route guidance, in response to meeting of the first condition;
determine whether a second condition for switching the background route guidance to a foreground route guidance is met;
receive, in response to meeting of the second condition, a user input indicating whether to initiate the foreground route guidance; and
initiate, in response to the receiving of the user input, the foreground route guidance.
wherein determining whether the first condition is met comprises:
collecting current vehicle data; and
determining whether there is a first driving pattern corresponding to the current vehicle data wherein a driving pattern includes information regarding a cumulative frequency of times the driving pattern has occurred,
wherein a preliminary driving pattern is converted to the driving pattern when a cumulative frequency of the preliminary driving patterns is greater than or equal to a threshold value,
wherein the initiating the background route guidance comprises displaying a background route guidance interface through an image output device,
wherein the initiating the foreground route guidance comprises displaying a foreground route guidance interface through the image output device, and
wherein, in the background route guidance, guidance on a route, guidance on a destination and guidance on an estimated arrival time are not displayed.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites an apparatus. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 10.
Additionally, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processor”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “a memory storing at least one program” and “a processor configured to operate by executing the at least one program” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 10.
Additionally, the memory and processor are recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the claimed steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 10.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ettinger et al. (US 2020/0408544 A1), hereinafter Ettinger, Brinkmann et al. (US 9,141,995 B1), hereinafter Brinkmann, and McGavran et al. (US 2014/0279723 A1), hereinafter McGavran.
Claim 1
Ettinger discloses the claimed method of presenting driving information (see Figure 5), the method comprising:
determining, in response to a vehicle starting to drive, whether a first condition for initiating a background route guidance is met (see ¶0034-0035, regarding that during travel towards the destination, the system provides an adapted map/routing information, e.g., routing information turned off with no routing information, or routing information turned on with reduced level of routing information, depending on the configuration and the vehicle’s current location, time, and/or other criteria; ¶0019, regarding that the reduced level of routing information or routing information turned off is provided because the user is familiar with the general location and is far away from their destination);
initiating the background route guidance, in response to meeting of the first condition (see ¶0034-0035, regarding that during travel towards the destination, the system provides an adapted map/routing information, e.g., routing information turned off with no routing information, or routing information turned on with reduced level of routing information, depending on the configuration and the vehicle’s current location, time, and/or other criteria, where the adapted information is presented on an adapted map/routing system display, as described in ¶0024, so as to give the appearance that the navapp has “gone to sleep” and is then woken up at a particular location, as specified by the configuration, e.g., latlong, street address, distance from destination, time from destination, or other criteria, as described in ¶0026).
Either a level of adapted map/routing information in which the routing information is turned off with no routing information or a level of adapted map/routing information in which the routing information is turned on with a reduced level of routing information (see ¶0029-0030, with respect to Figure 4) may be reasonably applied to the limitation of “background route guidance,” such that the limitation of “first condition” may be reasonably taught by any of the embodiments of the criteria that determines no routing information or a reduced level of routing information, e.g., vehicle’s location, time, familiarity, etc. (see ¶0018-0019).
Ettinger further discloses that the claimed method comprises:
determining whether a second condition for switching the background route guidance to a foreground route guidance is met (see ¶0034-0035, regarding that during travel towards the destination, the system provides an adapted map/routing information, e.g., routing information turned on with full level of routing information, depending on the configuration and the vehicle’s current location, time, and/or other criteria; ¶0020, regarding that a full level of routing information is provided because the user is nearing their destination); and
initiating the foreground route guidance (see ¶0034-0035, regarding that during travel towards the destination, the system provides an adapted map/routing information, e.g., routing information turned on with full level of routing information, depending on the configuration and the vehicle’s current location, time, and/or other criteria, where the adapted information is presented on an adapted map/routing system display, as described in ¶0024, so as to give the appearance that the navapp has “gone to sleep” and is then woken up at a particular location, as specified by the configuration, e.g., latlong, street address, distance from destination, time from destination, or other criteria, as described in ¶0026).
A level of adapted map/routing information in which the routing information is turned on with a full level of routing information (see ¶0031, with respect to Figure 4) may be reasonably applied to the limitation of “foreground route guidance,” such that the limitation of “second condition” may be reasonably taught by any of the embodiments of the criteria that determines a full level of routing information, e.g., vehicle’s location, time, familiarity, etc. (see ¶0018-0021).
While Ettinger discloses user input for defining the settings described in at least ¶0016, Ettinger does not further disclose that a user input confirms the change to a foreground route guidance, such that the claimed method comprises:
receiving, in response to meeting of the second condition, a user input indicating whether to initiate the foreground route guidance; and
initiating, in response to the receiving of the user input, the foreground route guidance.
However, the technique of confirming a change to a different navigation display mode is known and would be obvious to incorporate into Ettinger, in light of McGavran.
Specifically, McGavran teaches a similar technique in which a simple, non-distracting display presentation 215 (similar to the background route guidance of Ettinger) is transitioned to a vehicle navigation presentation that provides turn-by-turn navigation instructions (similar to the foreground route guidance of Ettinger) (see ¶0032-0036, with respect to Figure 2), such that in response to determining to change to display presentation 225 (similar to the response to meeting the second condition of Ettinger), McGavran teaches receiving a user input indicating whether to initiate vehicle navigation presentation, and initiating, in response to the receiving of the user input, vehicle navigation presentation (see ¶0035, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that in the second stage 210, map application changes the display presentation 215 to the display presentation 225, which displays a UI selectable item 245 for initiating a vehicle navigation presentation so that map application can provide turn-by-turn navigation instructions, as further described in ¶0108).
Since the systems of Ettinger and McGavran are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing a navigation display on a vehicle capable of reducing displayed information, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Ettinger to further perform receiving, in response to meeting of the second condition, a user input indicating whether to initiate the foreground route guidance, and initiating, in response to the receiving of the user input, the foreground route guidance, in light of McGavran, with the predictable result of providing a non-intrusive display presentation that does not distract the user who has not affirmatively requested a route to be navigated (¶0036 of McGavran).
Even though the limitation of determining whether there is a first driving pattern corresponding to the current vehicle data does not include any claimed relationships to the “driving pattern” of the subsequent limitations, the “first driving pattern” is interpreted as pertaining to similar “driving patterns,” in light of the subsequent limitations, in order to advance prosecution. Specifically, Ettinger further discloses that the determining whether the first condition is met comprises collecting current vehicle data (see ¶0033-0034, regarding that the user provides origin and destination information to the system, and the system determines the vehicle’s current location, time, and other criteria, where the system comprises data collection component that includes GPS, accelerometer, or other means of determining location and/or movement, as described in ¶0015), and determining whether the vehicle is at a familiar location corresponding to the current vehicle data (see ¶0017-0021, regarding that settings include a particular portion of a route, such that the routing information is turned off for a particular portion of the route, as described in ¶0017, or when the vehicle’s current location is in a familiar location and is a distance away from the destination, as described in ¶0019). Ettinger does not explicitly describe the determination of whether the vehicle is at a familiar location as determining whether there is a first driving pattern; however, it would be obvious to modify the technique of determining familiar driving locations to be specifically associated with driving patterns, in light of Brinkmann.
Specifically, Brinkmann teaches routine driving trips to well-known locations (similar to the familiar location of Ettinger) as a first driving pattern (see col. 9, lines 5-32, with respect to Figure 3), with respect to the technique of determining whether there is a first driving pattern corresponding to current driving trip data (similar to the current vehicle data of Ettinger) (see col. 11, line 61-col. 12, line 15, regarding determining whether current driving trip data matches a driving trip pattern).
Since the systems of Ettinger and Brinkmann are directed to the same purpose, i.e. identifying familiar locations of a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the step of determining whether the first condition is met of Ettinger to further comprise determining whether there is a first driving pattern corresponding to the current vehicle data, in light of Brinkmann, with the predictable result of identifying a driving trip pattern associated with well-known locations on routine driving trips (col. 9, lines 5-32 of Brinkmann), applicable to the familiar locations of Ettinger (see ¶0019), using efficient methods (col. 12, line 51-54 of Brinkmann).
Ettinger does not further disclose that a driving pattern includes information regarding a cumulative frequency of times the driving pattern has occurred, wherein a preliminary driving pattern is converted to the driving pattern when a cumulative frequency of the preliminary driving patterns is greater than or equal to a threshold value. However, this feature functions independently of the remaining claim elements and bears no claimed structural or functional relationship to the “first driving pattern;” therefore, it would be obvious to modify Ettinger to teach this claimed feature, in light of Brinkmann.
Specifically, Brinkmann teaches a driving pattern includes information regarding a cumulative frequency of times the driving pattern has occurred (see col. 12, lines 36-56, regarding that a new driving trip pattern profile is created in a driving trip and driving pattern database 223 if a threshold number or frequency of driving trips for a vehicle 210 have similar characteristics, where driving trip data for a current driving trip is stored in a driving trip database 223, as described in col. 16, lines 50-53; col. 12, lines 24-36, regarding comparing the number of matching previous driving trips to a minimum driving pattern threshold in order to determine whether or not a current driving trip corresponds to a driving trip pattern), wherein a preliminary driving pattern is converted to the driving pattern when a cumulative frequency of the preliminary driving patterns is greater than or equal to a threshold value (see col. 12, lines 24-36, regarding that if the current driving trip data matches only one previous driving trip in a driving trip database for vehicle 210, then the current driving trip is determined to not correspond to a driving pattern, such that a current driving trip is identified as matching an existing driving pattern only if it matches a minimum threshold number or threshold frequency of previous driving trips; col. 12, lines 36-56, regarding that a new driving trip pattern profile is created in a driving trip and driving pattern database 223 if a threshold number or frequency of driving trips for a vehicle 210 have similar characteristics, where driving trip data for a current driving trip is stored in a driving trip database 223, as described in col. 16, lines 50-53).
Since the systems of Ettinger and Brinkmann are directed to the same purpose, i.e. identifying familiar locations of a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified method of Ettinger, so as to further comprise a driving pattern includes information regarding a cumulative frequency of times the driving pattern has occurred, wherein a preliminary driving pattern is converted to the driving pattern when a cumulative frequency of the preliminary driving patterns is greater than or equal to a threshold value, in light of Brinkmann, with the predictable result of requiring a minimum number or frequency of driving trips before creating a new driving trip pattern profile, thus promoting efficient storage and processing operations (col. 12, lines 24-36 of Brinkmann).
Ettinger further discloses initiating the foreground route guidance comprises displaying a foreground route guidance interface through the image output device (see ¶0014, regarding that routing information is displayed on a routing device and includes driving directions that the user can follow to drive from an origin to a destination; ¶0023-0024, regarding map/routing display 111 that displays routing information from the origin to destination). With respect to the full level of adapted map/routing information (i.e. “foreground guidance”), described in ¶0031, Ettinger reasonably teaches “displaying” the full level of routing information in ¶0023-0024.
Ettinger further discloses initiating the background route guidance comprises displaying a background route guidance interface through an image output device, wherein, in the background route guidance, guidance on a route, guidance on a destination and guidance on an estimated arrival time are not displayed (see ¶0024, regarding that an adapted amount of information is presented to a user on the adapted map/routing display, where the system provides an adapted map/routing information, e.g., routing information turned on with reduced level of routing information, or routing information turned off with no routing information, as described in ¶0034-0035, so as to give the appearance that the navapp has “gone to sleep” and is then woken up at a particular location, as described in ¶0026). Due to the limitation of “background route guidance” being defined as not displaying “guidance on a route,” without any limitations defining what is displayed, the term “route guidance” imparts no patentable weight, and thus, the display of a “background route guidance interface” may be reasonably taught by the sleep mode of Ettinger, in which “guidance on a route,” “guidance on a destination,” and “guidance on an estimated arrival time” are inherently not displayed.
In case the embodiment in which the routing information is turned off in Ettinger does not reasonably teach the claimed feature, McGavran may be reasonably combined with Ettinger, in light of the embodiment in which routing information is turned on with a reduced level of routing information in Ettinger.
Specifically, Ettinger does not specify the particular information that is displayed for routing information turned on with reduced level of routing information (see ¶0036). However, it would be obvious to modify the reduced level of routing information, such that Ettinger further performs initiating the background route guidance comprises displaying a background route guidance interface through an image output device, wherein, in the background route guidance, guidance on a route, guidance on a destination and guidance on an estimated arrival time are not displayed, in light of McGavran.
Specifically, McGavran further teaches initiating display presentation 215 (similar to the background route guidance of Ettinger) comprises displaying a background route guidance interface through an image output device (see ¶0030-0031, regarding Figure 2 is associated with a display screen provided on a vehicle or mobile device, where display presentation 215 simply shows the location of the device along the road being traveled by the vehicle, as described in ¶0032), wherein in display presentation 215, guidance on a route, guidance on a destination and guidance on an estimated arrival time are not displayed (see Figure 2, depicting display presentation 215 as not displaying a route, destination, or ETA).
Since the systems of Ettinger and McGavran are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing a navigation display on a vehicle capable of reducing displayed information, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Ettinger to further perform initiating the background route guidance comprises displaying a background route guidance interface through an image output device, wherein, in the background route guidance, guidance on a route, guidance on a destination and guidance on an estimated arrival time are not displayed, in light of McGavran, with the predictable result of providing a simple, non-distracting presentation to a user (¶0032 of McGavran).
Claim 4
Ettinger further discloses that the current vehicle data comprises information about a location of a current vehicle and time (see ¶0033-0034, regarding that the user provides origin and destination information to the system, and the system determines the vehicle’s current location, time, and other criteria, where the system comprises data collection component that includes GPS, accelerometer, or other means of determining location and/or movement, as described in ¶0015), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Ettinger does not further disclose that the “current vehicle data” comprises a day of week. However, Brinkmann teaches similar “current vehicle data,” as discussed in detail in the rejection of claim 1, comprising a day of the week (see col. 11, line 62-col. 12, line 23, regarding that determining whether the current driving trip data matches data that corresponds to a driving pattern considers the day of the week), where Brinkmann may be reasonably combined with Ettinger using the same rational applied in claim 1.
Brinkmann further teaches that the first driving pattern comprises information about a starting point, a day of the week, and a driving start time (see col. 11, lines 15-31, regarding that a driving trip pattern is associated starting and ending locations and day of the week, as further described in col. 12, lines 16-23), and whether there is the first driving pattern corresponding to the current driving trip data (similar to the current vehicle data of Ettinger) is determined based on whether pieces of information in the current driving trip data and the first driving pattern are identical to each other (see col. 11, line 43-col. 12, line 23, regarding determining whether the current driving trip data matches data that corresponds to a driving pattern). The limitation of “pieces of information” does not require all elements of the “first driving pattern” and “current vehicle data” to be identical.
Claim 5
Ettinger, as modified by Brinkmann, further discloses that the second condition comprises at least one of an increase in an estimated arrival time at a destination by a threshold value or more when driving along the route of the first driving pattern, deviation of the vehicle from the route of the first driving pattern, and generation of a road traffic message on the route of the first driving pattern (see ¶0027, regarding that in the event of an unusual traffic situation, the level of adapted map/routing information is temporarily increased, where the increased level pertains to the full level of routing information, as opposed to the reduced levels described in ¶0029-0031). Only one of the limitations of an increase in an estimated arrival time at a destination by a threshold value or more when driving along the route of the first driving pattern, deviation of the vehicle from the route of the first driving pattern, or generation of a road traffic message on the route of the first driving pattern is required to be taught by prior art; Ettinger is applied to teach the limitation of “generation of a road traffic message on the route of the first driving pattern.”
The claim does not define a particular entity that generates a road traffic message; therefore, the “road traffic message” may be reasonably taught by the identification of an unusual traffic event described in Ettinger.
The “route of the first driving pattern” merely represents the vehicle’s current route, as defined in claim 1.
Claim 6
Brinkmann further teaches the known technique of collecting new driving data, and determining whether there is a second driving pattern corresponding to the new driving data (see col. 11, line 61-col. 12, line 15, regarding determining whether current driving trip data matches a driving trip pattern; col. 9, line 55-col. 10, line 5, regarding that vehicle operation data is sent periodically, e.g., daily, weekly, etc., such that periodic driving trip and pattern analysis may be performed), such that this technique may be reasonably included in Ettinger using the same rationale discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Further, this limitation does not influence any other elements of the claim and thus may be reasonably included into the method of Ettinger.
Claim 7
Brinkmann further teaches updating, in response to the presence of the second driving pattern, the second driving pattern based on the new driving data (see col. 15, lines 30-51, with respect to step 303 of Figure 3, regarding that if the driving trip and destination data corresponds to a driving trip pattern, a set of previously stored driving trip characteristics, risk factors, and risk assessment values corresponding to the driving trip pattern are retrieved, where variations between the current driving trip data received in step 301 and the corresponding driving trip pattern data retrieved in step 306 are determined, as described in col. 16, lines 17-49, and the vehicle driving data received in step 301, the risk factors and risk assessment values retrieved in step 306 for the driving trip pattern, and data corresponding to the variations determined in step 307 are stored in step 308, as described in col. 16, lines 50-58; Figure 3, with respect to steps 303, 306, 307, and 308), and generating, in response to the absence of the second driving pattern, a new driving pattern based on the new driving data (see col. 11, lines 56-61, regarding that if the data for the current driving trip does not match the data for a predetermined number of previous driving trips, then the current driving trip does not correspond to an existing driving pattern, where a new driving trip pattern is created in a driving trip and driving pattern database 223, as described in col. 12, lines 37-56; Figure 3, with respect to steps 303, 304, 305, and 308).
Claim 8
McGavran further teaches that the receiving of the user input indicating whether to initiate a vehicle navigation presentation that provides turn-by-turn navigation instructions (similar to the foreground route guidance of Ettinger) comprises displaying a foreground route guidance switch object that is interactable with the user, on the background route guidance interface (see ¶0035, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that in the second stage 210, map application changes the display presentation 215 to the display presentation 225, which displays a UI selectable item 245 for initiating a vehicle navigation presentation so that map application can provide turn-by-turn navigation instructions, as further described in ¶0108).
Claim 9
Ettinger does not further disclose that the initiating of the foreground route guidance comprises displaying the guidance on the route, guidance on the destination, and guidance on the estimated arrival time on the background route guidance interface. However, this feature is further taught by McGavran and may be reasonably combined with Ettinger, using the same rationale discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Specifically, McGavran teaches that initiating a vehicle navigation presentation (similar to the initiating of the foreground route guidance of Ettinger) comprises displaying the guidance on the route, guidance on the destination, and guidance on the estimated arrival time on the background route guidance interface (see ¶0035, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that in the second stage 210, map application changes the display presentation 215 to the display presentation 225, which displays a UI selectable item 245 for initiating a vehicle navigation presentation so that map application can provide turn-by-turn navigation instructions, as further described in ¶0108; Figure 2, depicting display presentation 225 as displaying a destination, route, and ETA).
Claim 10
Ettinger, modified by Brinkmann and McGavran, teaches the claimed apparatus for presenting driving information (see ¶0022-0023, with respect to mapping/routing device 102 in Figure 1), the apparatus comprising:
a memory storing at least one program (see ¶0037, regarding instructions stored in memory are used to perform the processes of the invention); and
a processor configured to operate by executing the at least one program (see ¶0036-0037, regarding the method is implemented using computers or microprocessors), wherein the processor is further configured to perform the method discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 11
Ettinger further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing the method of claim 1 to execute on a computer (see ¶0037).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ettinger in view of Brinkmann and McGavran, and in further view of Abramson (US 2019/0376798 A1), hereinafter Abramson.
Claim 3
While Ettinger further discloses that that the level of adapted map/routing information may be temporarily increased in the event of unusual circumstances, such as a traffic situation (see ¶0027), Ettinger does not further disclose that the determining whether the first condition is met comprises:
calculating, in response to the determining that there is the first driving pattern, estimated driving data according to the first driving pattern; and
determining whether driving according to the estimated driving data is appropriate.
However, the technique of determining whether driving is “appropriate” based on driving data estimated while a navigation display is operating in the background is known to occur during similar unusual traffic situations, in light of Abramson.
Specifically, Abramson teaches a similar method of bringing a presentation of a navigation application to a foreground (similar to the foreground route guidance of Ettinger) on a user interface of a mobile device, defined as a vehicle in ¶0049, and operating the presentation of the navigation application in the background (similar to the background route guidance of Ettinger) of the device, based on various criteria, such as the device approaching a particular geographic area (see ¶0051). Abramson further teaches determining that the driver, e.g. Paula, is on her usual route (similar to the determining whether the first condition is met of Ettinger, with respect to a location familiar to the user in ¶0019), so as to further perform calculating estimated driving data according to the trip defined as Paula’s usual route (similar to the first driving pattern of Brinkmann), and determining whether driving according to the estimated driving data is appropriate (see ¶0089, regarding that in response to determining that Paula is in a trip of her usual route, the device determines that there is unusual traffic in the region that could cause the usual route to be sub-optimal, and determines a better route less familiar to Paula based on the current location, so as to visually launch a full user interface on the user’s device when Paula approaches the better route). The “estimated driving data” may be reasonably taught by the calculated better route, such that driving according to the better route is determined appropriate based on the various collected data described in ¶0089.
Since the systems of Ettinger and Abramson are directed to the same purpose, i.e. changing from a background to a foreground navigation presentation in a vehicle based on position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the step of determining whether the first condition is met of Ettinger to comprise calculating, in response to the determining that there is the first driving pattern, estimated driving data according to the first driving pattern, and determining whether driving according to the estimated driving data is appropriate, in light of Abramson, with the predictable result of responding to unusual traffic during navigation along a familiar route (¶0089 of Abramson).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Lee (US 2022/0136842 A1) teaches providing notifications to prevent a vehicle from deviating from a familiar route by mistake (¶0060-0062) and Goyal et al. (US 10,215,582 B1) teaches suppressing directions when a particular route segment indicates sufficient driver familiarity (see col. 3, lines 55-67).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights