DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. This action is responsive to the following communication: a non-provisional Application filed on July 2, 2025, which claims foreign priority to JP2024-137619, filed on August 19, 2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (see certified copy received on September 30, 2025), and thus the effective filing date is August 19, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The examiner acknowledges the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 2, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
4. Claims 1-13 are pending in the case; Claims 1 and 10 are independent claims. . This action is made non-final.
Specification
5. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. For example, the new title should at least reflect the features of controlling a vehicle based on the vertical motion parameter and/or preferentially selecting a route based on the amount of available map data.
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.
6. Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 10-13 are directed to a navigation system1. Therefore, Claims 10-13 meet the requirements to be considered a statutory category (See MPEP § 2106.03).
Step 2A, prong one evaluation:
The abstract ideas (specifically mental processes) in the rejected claims are as follows:
to more preferentially select, as the traveling route of the objective vehicle, a route for which an amount of the map data is large than a route for which the amount of the map data is small (Claim 10); more preferentially selecting, as the traveling route of the objective vehicle, a route for which a ratio of a section with the map data is high than a route for which the ratio of the section with the map data is low (Claim 11); more preferentially selecting, as the traveling route of the objective vehicle, a route for which a section with the map data is long than a route for which the section with the map data is short (Claim 12); more preferentially selecting, as the traveling route of the objective vehicle, a route for which the number of times of the traveling per unit distance is large than a route for which the number of times of the traveling per unit distance is small (Claim 13).
The recited “selecting” steps are mental processes that can easily be completed in the human mind. Nothing in the claims, except a recitation of a processor executing these instructions, precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claims encompass a person observing available map data and determining which route to take. Therefore, the above-noted claims recite abstract ideas.
The additional elements, found in Claims 10-13, are grouped as follows:
a storage device configured to store map data in which a vertical motion parameter is associated with a position on a map (Claim 10);
the vertical motion parameter being relevant to vertical motion of a wheel of a vehicle (Claim 10); in the map data, the number of times of traveling of a vehicle that gets involved in evaluation of the vertical motion parameter is further associated with the position on the map (Claim 13);
one or more processors configured to present a traveling route of an objective vehicle to a destination, to a user (Claim 10);
the one or more processors are configured to more preferentially select… (Claims 10-13).
Step 2A, prong two evaluation:
The additional elements, individually and in combination, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additional elements of groups (a)-(d) merely apply the abstract idea to a technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)); additional elements of groups (a) and (c) are insignificant extra-solution activities – specifically, elements of group (a) are pre-solution activities of collecting/obtaining data, and elements of group (c) are post-solution activities of displaying or transmitting (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); additional elements of groups (c) and (d) amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer without reciting a particular solution to a problem and do not appear to improve computer capabilities or an existing technology (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B:
The additional elements, individually and in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Office takes Official Notice that they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), or else they are insignificant extra solution activities in the form of data collection and analysis (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), listing numerous court decisions pertaining to observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions, such as the findings from Electric Power Group (holding that collecting information, analyzing it, and outputting certain results of the collection and analysis was not significantly more than the judicial exception)).
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.
7. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 1 (and similarly, independent Claim 10, as well as dependent Claims 2-4 and 11-13), recites “more preferentially select… ,“ but this appears to be a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “more preferentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention – it is not clear if other routes are selected as well, although less preferentially, or if the intended interpretation is that a particular route is selected based on the amount of the map data. In addition, independent Claim 1 (and similarly, independent Claim 10) recites “a route for which an amount of the map data is large than a route for which the amount of the map data is small,” but it is not clear if the intended recitation/interpretation is to select a route for which an amount of the map data is larger, rather than a route which has a smaller amount of the map data, or if there is another threshold to which the amount of the map data for each route is compared to. Dependent claims do not appear to cure the above-noted deficiencies of their respective independent claims, thus they are also rejected under the same rationale.
Discussion of Prior Art
The prior art of record does not appear to teach, disclose, or suggest the combination of limitations as recited in independent Claims 1 and 10, particularly with respect to “to more preferentially select, as a traveling route of the objective vehicle, a route for which an amount of the map data is large than a route for which the amount of the map data is small” (but see §§ 101 and 112 rejections, above).
For example, the prior art of Torschmied et al. (US 2020/0293043 A1) is directed towards determining a driving route for a vehicle based on a map database and associated attributes (see Abstract, ¶ 0002). Torschmied recognizes that conventional navigation systems allow the user to select a desired route (out of a plurality of potential routes) based on a variety of factors, such as the route length, type, time, traffic, etc. (see ¶¶ 0005, 0081). While Torschmied teaches that potential routes can be based on particular parameters (see ¶¶ 0094, 0102, 0108), Torschmied appears to be silent with respect to “to more preferentially select, as a traveling route of the objective vehicle, a route for which an amount of the map data is large than a route for which the amount of the map data is small,” wherein the stored map data comprises “a vertical motion parameter [associated] with a position on a map,” as required by independent Claim1 (and similarly, independent Claim 10).
The prior art of Giovanardi et al. (US 2023/0017774 A1) is directed towards proactively controlling a component of a vehicle system, such as suspension of the vehicle based on previously stored information (see ¶ 0048). Giovanardi discloses selecting a route based on the prior knowledge (see ¶ 0097), but Giovanardi does not appear to disclose or suggest that such route is selected in a manner required by Claim1 (and similarly, Claim 10), namely “to more preferentially select, as a traveling route of the objective vehicle, a route for which an amount of the map data is large than a route for which the amount of the map data is small.”
The prior art of Bills et al. (US 10,254,122 B2) is directed towards an automated route analysis and navigation, and while Bills suggests recommending routes based on different factors, namely predicted traversal time and predicted damage, Bills appears to be silent with respect to “to more preferentially select, as a traveling route of the objective vehicle, a route for which an amount of the map data is large than a route for which the amount of the map data is small,” as recited in Claim 1 (and similarly, Claim 10). The prior art of Kojchev et al. (US 2023/0311606 A1) is directed to a control system for an adjustable suspension of a vehicle based on received map data and corresponding road type information, but does not appear to disclose or suggest “to more preferentially select, as a traveling route of the objective vehicle, a route for which an amount of the map data is large than a route for which the amount of the map data is small,” as required by Claim 1 (and similarly, Claim 10).
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
1 Note that Claims 1-9 were evaluated for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and although these claims recite some limitations that can be interpreted as being directed to an abstract idea (specifically, mental processes) (i.e., the step of preferentially selecting a route in Claim 1), the claims are eligible under § 101 because they recite additional elements (i.e., controlling the vehicle based on the vertical motion parameter, as recited in Claim 1) which integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Prosecution Insights