DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on June 18, 2025. Claims 1 – 9 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 – 4 and 7 – 9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claims 1 and 9, the phrase “the first distance” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 4, the phrase “the alternative guidance information includ[ing]
information on at least one of an alternative target body other than the map target body before revision, a road shape and/or a road structure at the guidance point, and a dynamic subject body.”
Any claims not specifically mentioned herein above, but nonetheless rejected as being indefinite, are rejected for incorporating the errors of their respective base claims 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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The following rejection is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. (See 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).
Do claims 1 and 5 fall into one of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claims 1 and 5 recite a guidance revising method, and the body of the claims positively recites a series of method steps. Therefore, claims 1 and 5 are directed to a process.
Does claim 9 fall into one of four of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim 9 recites a guidance revising apparatus. The body of claim 9 recites at least one physical element that forms part of the claimed apparatus. Therefore, claim 9 is directed to an apparatus
Step 2A – Prong 1
Do claims 1, 3, 5 – 7 and 9 recite a judicial exception? Yes. The claims recite the limitations of
detecting an object using an on-board sensor at a position the first distance away from the guidance point during traveling on a guided traveling route, determining whether the map target body on which the route guidance has been provided in the preliminary guidance matches the object, and revising guidance information on the guidance point when the map target body on which the route guidance has been provided in the preliminary guidance is determined not to match the object (Claims 1, 5 and 9);
generating a message including the revised guidance information in accordance with an audio interface (Claim 3);
detecting a plurality of potential alternative target bodies other than the map target body, and evaluating, for each of the plurality of potential alternative target bodies, a degree of dissimilarity between the alternative target body and the map target body, wherein the revised guidance information includes information about the alternative target body that is lowest in the degree of dissimilarity (Claim 5);
the degree of dissimilarity is a value that is determined in accordance with at least one of elements including a positional relationship between the map target body and the alternative target body at the guidance point, a positional relationship between the traveling route and the alternative target body at the guidance point, and a distance from the alternative target body to the guidance point (Claim 6); and
evaluating a driving load on a driver (Claim 7).
The detecting, determining, revising, generating and evaluating limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performances of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a controller” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind/visually. For example, but for the “controller is configured to” language, the claims encompass the user to manually and/or visually perform the aforementioned steps. As such, the limitations recited in claims 1, 3, 5 – 7 and 9 are considered mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Do claims 1, 3, 5 – 7 and 9 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Claims 3 and 6 are specifically directed to the abstract idea. Claims 1, 5, 7 and 9, however, recite several additional elements:
obtaining, from a database storing information about a target body, a map target body at a guidance point where the guidance is needed, the map target body being the target body; providing route guidance including the map target body as a preliminary guidance at a position a second distance away from the guidance point, the second distance being longer than the first distance; and outputting the guidance information revised at a position less than the first distance away from the guidance point (Claims 1, 5 and 9); and not outputting the revised guidance information when the driving load is higher than a given threshold value (Claim 7).
The obtaining/providing/outputting steps recited in the claims are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of a map target body at a guidance point where the guidance is needed, the map target body being the target body; as a general means of providing an electronic representation of route guidance including the map target body as a preliminary guidance at a position a second distance away from the guidance point, the second distance being longer than the first distance; and as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of guidance information revised at a position less than the first distance away from the guidance point), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The limitation of not outputting the revised guidance information when the driving load is higher than a given threshold value does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea because this particular limitation does not recite any improvements to the functioning of the controller or any other claimed technology. In addition, no particular machine is recited beyond a generic controller. Furthermore, by not outputting the revised guidance information, there is no transformation of the claimed controller or any other article recited. An arbitrary unknown condition is met and then no revised guidance information is distributed. This overall pattern—collecting data, analyzing/calculating, and presenting/not presenting the results—is characteristic of abstract information processing. As such, these generic controller limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, claims 1, 3, 5 – 7 and 9 are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Do claims 1, 3, 5 – 7 and 9 provide an inventive concept? No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts 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 using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Claims 1, 3, 5 – 7 and 9 are considered ineligible.
As to claims 2, 4 and 8, these claims include limitation that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The limitations in these claims merely extend the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by cited U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0261969 A1 to Nakamura et al. (herein after “Nakamura et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1 and 9,
the Nakamura et al. publication discloses a guidance revising apparatus (1)(see FIG. 1 and ¶5 – ¶8) comprising:
a controller (20) that revises guidance to a destination (see ¶38 and ¶68 – ¶71), wherein the controller (20) is configured to:
obtain, from a database storing information about a target body, a map target body at a guidance point where the guidance is needed, the map target body being the target body (see ¶22 for “a storage unit for storing landmark information relating to facilities; [and] an extracting unit configured to extract at least one landmark corresponding to a navigation point from the landmark information stored by the storage unit”);
provide route guidance including the map target body as a preliminary guidance at a position a second distance away from the guidance point, the second distance being longer than the first distance (see ¶22 for “a navigation unit configured to guide the navigation point by use of the at least one landmark extracted”);
detect an object using an on-board sensor at a position the first distance away from the guidance point during traveling on a guided traveling route (see ¶31 for “a determination process which determines, at a position [the first distance away from the guidance point during traveling on a guided traveling route] to take an image of a characteristic object corresponding to the landmark information thereat, whether or not the characteristic object can be recognized from the image obtained through the obtaining process”);
determine whether the map target body on which the route guidance has been provided in the preliminary guidance matches the object (see ¶31 for “whether or not the characteristic object can be recognized from the image obtained through the obtaining process”; see also ¶55, where “pattern matching . . . [is used to determine] . . . whether or not the landmark indicated by the landmark information IL is shown in the captured image”);
revise guidance information on the guidance point when the map target body on which the route guidance has been provided in the preliminary guidance is determined not to match the object (see FIG. 5 and ¶72 – ¶73, wherein [w]hen the degree of the similarity is smaller than the predetermined value (step S109; No) . . . [and] . . . the system controller 20 determines that there is another piece of landmark information IL (step S112; Yes), the system controller 20 sets the landmark indicated by the other piece of landmark information IL as the template (step S104), and executes the process at and after step S105. In contrast, when the system controller 20 determines that any other piece of landmark information IL does not exist (step S112; No), the system controller 20 guides the way without using the landmark information IL (step S113)”)(Emphasis added); and
output the guidance information revised at a position less than the first distance away from the guidance point (see FIG. 5 and ¶64, where “the system controller 20 outputs the audio guidance indicating turning right or left at the intersection Pi with reference to the landmark "convenience store A" as a mark while highlighting either or both of the characteristic objects Ft1, Ft2 in the captured image by edging them”; see also ¶78, where “the system controller 20 highlights the characteristic object Ft3 from the displayed captured image and outputs the audio guidance indicating turning right or left with reference to the characteristic object Ft3 as a mark. For example, during the route guide, the system controller 20 displays the dashed frame of the search range W3 over the captured image and blinks it, and outputs the audio guidance such as ‘Turn right xx meter ahead. The blinking position is the landmark.’.”) (Emphasis added.)
As to claim 2,
the Nakamura et al. publication discloses the revised guidance information including at least one of correction guidance information in which presence of the map target body has been corrected and alternative guidance information for providing guidance on an alternative target body serving as an alternative to the map target body. (See ¶72 – ¶73.)
As to claim 3,
the Nakamura et al. publication discloses generating a message including the revised guidance information in accordance with an audio interface. (See FIG. 5 and ¶64, where “the system controller 20 outputs the audio guidance indicating turning right or left at the intersection Pi with reference to the landmark "convenience store A" as a mark while highlighting either or both of the characteristic objects Ft1, Ft2 in the captured image by edging them”; see also ¶78, where “the system controller 20 highlights the characteristic object Ft3 from the displayed captured image and outputs the audio guidance indicating turning right or left with reference to the characteristic object Ft3 as a mark. For example, during the route guide, the system controller 20 displays the dashed frame of the search range W3 over the captured image and blinks it, and outputs the audio guidance such as ‘Turn right xx meter ahead. The blinking position is the landmark.’.”)(Emphasis added)
As to claim 4 (as best understood based on the 112(b) rejection discussed herein above),
the Nakamura et al. publication discloses the alternative guidance information includes information on at least one of an alternative target body other than the map target body before revision, a road shape and/or a road structure at the guidance point, and a dynamic subject body. (See ¶76, where “the system controller 20 detects another characteristic object (hereinafter referred to as "other characteristic object Fex") from the target image Itag, the other characteristic object Fex corresponding to a landmark other than the landmark indicated by the landmark information IL”.)
As to claim 5,
the Nakamura et al. publication discloses a guidance revising method that is to be executed by a controller and for revising guidance to a destination (see FIG. 1 and ¶5 – ¶8), the guidance revising method comprising:
obtaining, from a database storing information about a target body, a map target body at a guidance point where the guidance is needed, the map target body being the target body (see ¶22 for “a storage unit for storing landmark information relating to facilities; [and] an extracting unit configured to extract at least one landmark corresponding to a navigation point from the landmark information stored by the storage unit”);
detecting an object using an on-board sensor at a position a first distance away from the guidance point during traveling on a guided traveling route (see ¶31 for “a determination process which determines, at a position [the first distance away from the guidance point during traveling on a guided traveling route] to take an image of a characteristic object corresponding to the landmark information thereat, whether or not the characteristic object can be recognized from the image obtained through the obtaining process”);
determining whether the map target body matches the object (see ¶31 for “whether or not the characteristic object can be recognized from the image obtained through the obtaining process”; see also ¶55, where “pattern matching . . . [is used to determine] . . . whether or not the landmark indicated by the landmark information IL is shown in the captured image”);
revising guidance information on the guidance point when the map target body is determined not to match the object (see FIG. 5 and ¶72 – ¶73, wherein [w]hen the degree of the similarity is smaller than the predetermined value (step S109; No) . . . [and] . . . the system controller 20 determines that there is another piece of landmark information IL (step S112; Yes), the system controller 20 sets the landmark indicated by the other piece of landmark information IL as the template (step S104), and executes the process at and after step S105. In contrast, when the system controller 20 determines that any other piece of landmark information IL does not exist (step S112; No), the system controller 20 guides the way without using the landmark information IL (step S113)”)(Emphasis added);
outputting the guidance information revised at a position less than the first distance away from the guidance point (see FIG. 5 and ¶64, where “the system controller 20 outputs the audio guidance indicating turning right or left at the intersection Pi with reference to the landmark "convenience store A" as a mark while highlighting either or both of the characteristic objects Ft1, Ft2 in the captured image by edging them”; see also ¶78, where “the system controller 20 highlights the characteristic object Ft3 from the displayed captured image and outputs the audio guidance indicating turning right or left with reference to the characteristic object Ft3 as a mark. For example, during the route guide, the system controller 20 displays the dashed frame of the search range W3 over the captured image and blinks it, and outputs the audio guidance such as ‘Turn right xx meter ahead. The blinking position is the landmark.’.”)(Emphasis added);
detecting a plurality of potential alternative target bodies other than the map target body (see ¶76, where “the system controller 20 detects another characteristic object (hereinafter referred to as "other characteristic object Fex") from the target image Itag, the other characteristic object Fex corresponding to a landmark other than the landmark indicated by the landmark information IL”); and
evaluating, for each of the plurality of potential alternative target bodies, a degree of dissimilarity between the alternative target body and the map target body, wherein the revised guidance information includes information about the alternative target body that is lowest in the degree of dissimilarity (see ¶76 – ¶83).
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 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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Nakamura et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0052474 A1 to Rajanna et al. (herein after "Rajanna et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 7,
the Nakamura et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
evaluating a driving load on a driver; and
not outputting the revised guidance information when the driving load is higher than a given threshold value.
The Rajanna et al. publication discloses “a vehicle infotainment system (VIS) to monitor physiological parameters of occupants of a vehicle. The VIS also monitors vehicle operating parameters. The VIS is able to detect when an occupant is experiencing a physiological condition and correlates the physiological condition to one or more vehicle operating parameters. In response to detecting a physiological condition and to determining the correlation, the VIS causes an action to occur in order to mitigate the physiological condition and/or to seek assistance for the physiological condition.” (See Abstract.)
In particular, “the VIS can . . . poll for physiological information when the vehicle performs specific actions, such as sudden braking, wide turn, reduce speed for an upcoming red light stop, slow movement in heavy traffic, or when any of the tires hit a pothole, in order to update the health profiles of the occupants and optimize its operation. For example, the data might show that wide turns and/or hitting a pothole significantly raises the pulse rate of at least one occupant. In this case, the VIS can determine to query the navigation system for alternative routes. For example, an alternative route with no known wide turns or potholes can be used if switching to such route will not heavily impact the arrival time. The VIS can cause the vehicle to announce that it plans to take an alternative route that is free of potholes and an occupant can accept or reject such recommendation. In another example, an autonomous driving style or other driver assistance recommendations can be adjusted to provide a smoother ride for the comfort of occupants in the vehicle. In some approaches, occupants can always override decisions or reject recommendations that the VIS makes.” (See ¶58.)(Emphasis added.)
Such disclosure suggests evaluating a driving load on a driver, and not outputting the revised guidance information when the driving load is higher than a given threshold value.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Nakamura et al. publication to evaluate a driving load on a driver, and not output the revised guidance information when the driving load is higher than a given threshold value, as suggested by the Rajanna et al. publication, in order to mitigate the physiological condition and/or to seek assistance for the physiological condition.
As to claim 8,
the Nakamura et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the controller outputting corrected guidance information in which presence of the map target body has been corrected when a distance from a current position of a vehicle to the guidance point is less than or equal to a given distance.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to output corrected guidance information in which presence of the map target body has been corrected when a distance from a current position of a vehicle to the guidance point is less than or equal to a given distance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
