DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to claims filed 2/19/2025.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Due to its claim structure, claim 11 is tested as a separate statutory category from method claim 1, from which claim 11 depends.
The claimed invention does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) because (1) in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of “computer-readable recording medium,” a program on a computer readable recording medium encompasses forms of non-transitory tangible media as well as transitory propagating signals, which are non-statutory per se (In re Nuijten), and (2) Applicant’s specification fails to limit the term “computer-readable recording medium” to only non-transitory tangible media.
The examiner suggests amending the claimed “computer-readable recording medium” to recite "a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium" which would serve to exclude non-statutory subject matter from the claim's scope.
Claims 1-11 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.
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 representing instructions for a route. 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 initiating the background route guidance, in response to meeting of the first condition. No particular vehicle operations are claimed with respect to the “background route guidance,” and the limitation of “initiating the background route guidance” encompasses a person providing guidance instructions.
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. first condition is met) and forming a simple observations and evaluations (i.e. initiate the background route guidance). 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 initiating, in response to the receiving of the user input, the foreground route guidance. No particular vehicle operations are claimed with respect to the “foreground route guidance,” and the limitation of “initiating the foreground route guidance” encompasses a person providing guidance instructions.
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. input provided by a user) and forming a simple observations and evaluations (i.e. initiating the foreground route guidance). 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 elements 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).
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 receiving step was 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 as being provided to common computing devices, and the specification does not provide any indication that the input requires a specialized interface. 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, indicate that storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 2-9 and 11
Dependent claims 2-9 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 2 recites the additional elements of the 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.
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. first driving pattern and current vehicle data) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determining whether there is a first driving pattern corresponding to the current vehicle data). 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 current vehicle data) and amounts to mere data gathering, 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 2 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
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. Thus, 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 does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
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. Thus, 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 does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
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 initiating of the background route guidance comprises displaying a background route guidance interface, and 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” steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general display of background route guidance interface and 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 “interface” or “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 interface and switch object are 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 a guidance on a route, guidance on a destination, guidance on an estimated arrival time, and guidance on an alternative route 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 a route, guidance on a destination, guidance on an estimated arrival time, and guidance on an alternative route) 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 8 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 1. 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.
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 1-11 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).
Key to Interpreting the Prior Art Rejections
For readability, all claim language has been underlined.
Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parentheses.
Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation.
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, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ettinger et al. (US 2020/0408544 A1), hereinafter Ettinger, in view of Ebi (US 2015/0346914 A1), hereinafter Ebi.
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 Ebi.
Specifically, Ebi teaches a vehicle navigation device 2 that includes a display portion 8 (see ¶0030, with respect to Figure 1) that changes from a display mode that limits or reduces information being displayed, as described in ¶0072-0073 (similar to the background route guidance taught by Ettinger) to a travel guidance display (similar to the foreground route guidance taught by Ettinger), such that before transitioning to the travel guidance display (similar to the response to meeting the second condition taught by Ettinger), Ebi teaches receiving a user input indicating whether to initiate the travel guidance display, and initiating, in response to the receiving of the user input, travel guidance display (see ¶0072-0075, regarding that in the correction-oriented display mode, the navigation device displays an initial screen that includes a confirmation button, such that manipulation of the confirmation button changes the display window to the travel guidance display).
Since the systems of Ettinger and Ebi 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 Ebi, with the predictable result of desirably providing the user with an ability to confirm transition to a travel guidance display window (¶0074 of Ebi).
Claim 2
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 there is a first driving pattern 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).
A “first driving pattern” may be reasonably taught by the settings that define particular portions of a driving route. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Claim 5
Ettinger 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.”
Claim 6
Ettinger further discloses that the claimed method comprises:
collecting new driving 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 there is a second driving pattern corresponding to the new driving 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 the vehicle’s current location is in a familiar location and is a distance away from the destination, as described in ¶0019).
Claim 6 depends from claim 1, not claim 2 that introduces a “first driving pattern;” therefore, Ettinger may be applied to the limitations of claim 6 similar to the application in claim 2, given “driving data” is not collected in claim 1. A “second driving pattern” may be reasonably taught by the settings that define particular portions of a driving route. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Claim 8
Ettinger further discloses that the initiating of the background route guidance comprises displaying a background route guidance interface (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).
Eli further teaches that the receiving of the user input indicating whether to initiate travel guidance display (similar to the foreground route guidance taught by Ettinger) comprises displaying a foreground route guidance switch object that is interactable with the user, on the correction-oriented display mode defined as limiting or reducing information being displayed in ¶0072-0073 (similar to the background route guidance interface taught by Ettinger) (see ¶0072-0075, regarding that in the correction-orientated display mode, an initial display window is displayed with a confirmation button that may be manipulated by a user).
Claim 10
Ettinger, modified by Eli, 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);
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 computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing the method of claim 1 to execute on a computer (see ¶0037).
Claims 3, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ettinger in view of Ebi, 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 taught by 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 taught by 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 taught by 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 taught by Ettinger), 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 taught by 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).
Claim 4
Ettinger further discloses that the current vehicle data comprises information about a location of a current vehicle and time, and the first driving pattern comprises information about a starting point and a driving start time (see ¶0027, regarding the presentation of different levels of adapted map/routing information to the user at different locations or moments in time, where the levels include routing information turned off with no routing information and routing information turned on with reduced level of routing information, as described in ¶0029-0030). The “starting point” and “driving start time” define the start point and start time for the level of adapted map/routing information in Ettinger.
Ettinger does not further disclose that the “current vehicle data” comprises a day of week, and the “first driving pattern” comprises a day of week. However, it would be obvious to include this additional information, 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 taught by 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 taught by Ettinger) of the device, based on various criteria, such as the device approaching a particular geographic area (see ¶0051), such that a day of week is considered in addition to location and time (see ¶0056, regarding that an importance is used for determining to operate the navigation application in the background, where the importance is based on a day of week, time, and location, as described in ¶0056, e.g., never give voice instructions on weekday mornings when within 5 km of workplace, as described in ¶0053).
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 current vehicle data and first driving pattern taught by Ettinger to comprise a day of week, in light of Abramson, with the predictable result of preventing the distraction of users while driving that may compromise the safety of the user (¶0003 of Abramson) that only apply to particular days of the week (¶0053 of Abramson).
Ettinger further discloses that 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 (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). The limitation of “pieces of information” does not require all limitations of the location, time, and day of week to be identical.
Claim 7
Ettinger does not further disclose 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. However, the updated driving pattern and new driving pattern do not influence the particular route guidance; therefore, it would be obvious to incorporate the technique of updating a familiar route and generating a new route, 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 taught by 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 taught by Ettinger) of the device, based on various criteria, such as the device approaching a particular geographic area (see ¶0051). Abramson further teaches updating a familiar (usual) route (similar to the second driving pattern taught by Ettinger) based on the motion inputs provided from vehicle sensors (similar to the new driving data taught by Ettinger) when traveling the familiar route (similar to the presence of the second driving pattern taught by Ettinger) (see ¶0108-0116, with respect to Figure 8, regarding that the trip is identified as the usual route based on motion inputs while traveling, regarding that familiar routes are identified as those that have been performed with at least a defined frequency, as described in ¶0070), and generating a new driving pattern based on the motion inputs when deviating to the alternative route (similar to the absence of the second driving pattern taught by Ettinger) (see ¶0122-0127, with respect to Figure 8, regarding that an alternative route is identified as a better route, in which notifications are determined based on familiarity). The familiar route of Abramson is reasonably updated to reflect a frequency of travel used for determining familiarity. The “new driving pattern” is not used in any particular operations and is merely generated.
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 method of Ettinger to further comprise 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, in light of Abramson, with the predictable result of preventing the distraction of users while driving that may compromise the safety of the user (¶0003 of Abramson) by accounting for the user’s degree of familiarity with segments of a route (¶0127 of Abramson).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ettinger in view of Ebi, and in further view of Vallet et al. (US 2024/0377936 A1), hereinafter Vallet.
Claim 9
Ettinger further discloses that the initiating of the foreground route guidance comprises displaying a guidance on a route (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).
While Ettinger considers destination and arrival time, Ettinger does not explicitly disclose that the “foreground route guidance” comprises displaying guidance on a destination, guidance on an estimated arrival time, and guidance on an alternative route on the background route guidance interface. However, these features are well known in the art and would be obvious to incorporate into the display of Ettinger, in light of Vallet.
Specifically, Vallet teaches initiating guidance (similar to the initiating of the foreground route guidance taught by Ettinger) that comprises displaying a guidance on a route (i.e. indication 624g of the route), guidance on a destination (i.e. representation 624h), guidance on an estimated arrival time (i.e. representation 648a), and guidance on an alternative route (i.e. indication 650) (see ¶0222, with respect to Figure 6L). Given that navigation along the “alternative route” of Vallet is not boldly presented until accepting option 644b (see ¶0221), the “guidance on an alternative route” may be interpreted similarly to the “background route guidance interface” of Ettinger, given that the claimed “guidance on an alternative route” is displayed in the step of “initiating the foreground route guidance.”
Since the systems of Ettinger and Vallet are directed to the same purpose, i.e. displaying route guidance in 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 initiating of the foreground route guidance taught by Ettinger to comprise displaying a guidance on a route, guidance on a destination, guidance on an estimated arrival time, and guidance on an alternative route on the background route guidance interface, in light of Vallet, with the predictable result of providing efficient ways of presenting content to a user, so as to reduce the number of inputs needed to view relevant information in a maps application (¶0004 of Vallet), such as by displaying the route, estimated time of arrival at the destination, and the alternative route on the same display (¶0222 of Vallet).
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).
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