CTNF 19/263,237 CTNF 90844 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Status of the Application Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/8/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-11 AIA 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 – see MPEP 606 . 06-11-01 AIA The following title is suggested: “Vehicular system for recommending destinations based on gathered data” . 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: communication interface configured to, memory configured to, controller configured to, in-vehicle apparatus configured to, in claims 1-20. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof -i.e. the claimed computing elements noted above represent generic computing elements implemented by a server and/or processor. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed towards a server, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a method of organizing human activity – commercial interaction and fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: receive environmental information acquired / store information indicating an attribute of a user of the vehicle and scenario information defining a proposal scenario to the user / derive, using the scenario information, a proposal to the user based on attribute information indicating the attribute and the environmental information / output or execute the proposal by transmitting proposal information indicating the proposal. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a communication interface configured to communicate with an in-vehicle apparatus mounted in a vehicle / a sensor or a camera mounted in the vehicle / a memory configured to store information / a controller. The interface/apparatus/sensor or camera / memory /controller represent generic computing elements. Performing the claimed limitations within a vehicular environment does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible. Independent claims 2, 12 are directed to a server and system for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1. Claims 2, 12 perform the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 2, 12 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1. Remaining dependent claims 3-11, 13-20 further recite and narrow the abstract idea of claims 2/12. The claims further recite the abstract idea of a mathematical concept – i.e. mathematical calculations/relationships, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: the proposal scenario includes a weighted sum of elements that include a preference characteristic value for each user and an environmental value in the vehicle of that user. The claims further recite the additional element of using a large language model to generate data (‘generate an equation to derive the weighted sum from the scenario information using a large-scale language model ‘) and a terminal apparatus . The terminal apparatus represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations; it is recited at a high level of generality. Using a large language model to generate data does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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 3, 5, 6, 13, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 3 , 5, 6, 13, 15, 16 recite the limitation "each user”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. Claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 12, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Ricci (20140309927). As per Claim 1 , Ricci discloses: a communication interface configured to communicate with an in-vehicle apparatus mounted in a vehicle, and receive, from the in-vehicle apparatus, environmental information acquired by a sensor or a camera mounted in the vehicle; (the interface/apparatus/sensor or camera represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: para 256; 258, 268) a memory configured to store information indicating an attribute of a user of the vehicle and scenario information defining a proposal scenario to the user; (the memory represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 266; 342, 547 – user attribute; suggested route [proposal scenario] – at least para 114, 120, 124) a controller configured to derive, using the scenario information, a proposal to the user based on attribute information indicating the attribute and the environmental information, (the controller represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 274, 275; derive a suggested route based on the user attribute and environmental data – at least para 522, 547, 268 – environmental data) and cause the in-vehicle apparatus of the vehicle to output or execute the proposal by transmitting, to the in-vehicle apparatus, proposal information indicating the proposal. ( at least: para 180, 181, 522, 552, 567) As per Claim 2 , Ricci discloses: a communication interface configured to make communication; a memory configured to store scenario information defining a proposal scenario to a user of a vehicle; (the memory represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 266; 342, 547 – user attribute; suggested route [proposal scenario] – at least para 114, 120, 124) a controller configured to derive, using the scenario information, a proposal to the user based on attribute information indicating an attribute of the user and environmental information, (the controller represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 274, 275; derive a suggested route based on the user attribute and environmental data – at least para 522, 547, 268 – environmental data) and cause an in-vehicle apparatus of the vehicle to output or execute the proposal by transmitting, to the in-vehicle apparatus, proposal information indicating the proposal. ( at least: para 180, 181, 522, 552, 567) As per Claims 8, 18 , Ricci discloses: The controller is configured to transmit the proposal information by taking into account the attribute of the user. (at least: para 546, 547, 560, 561) As per Claims 10, 20 , Ricci discloses: The controller is configured to receive, from the in-vehicle apparatus, information indicating a reaction to the proposal. (at least: para 522: “the route may be suggested to the user and accepted by the user”) As per Claim 12 , Ricci discloses: an in-vehicle apparatus mounted in a vehicle; (the apparatus represents a generic computing element that perform the claimed limitations. At least: para 256; 258, 268) and a server apparatus configured to communicate with the in-vehicle apparatus, wherein the server apparatus is configured to derive, using scenario information defining a proposal scenario to a user of the vehicle, a proposal to the user based on attribute information indicating an attribute of the user and environmental information, (the sever apparatus represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 274, 275; derive a suggested route based on the user attribute and environmental data – at least para 522, 547, 268 – environmental data) transmit, to the in-vehicle apparatus of the vehicle, proposal information indicating the proposal, and the in-vehicle apparatus is configured to output or execute the proposal. ( at least: para 180, 181, 522, 552, 567) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 3, 13, 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Ricci (20140309927) in further view of Yang (12624956). As per Claims 3, 13 , Yang teaches: the proposal scenario includes a weighted sum of elements that include a preference characteristic value for each user and an environmental characteristic value in the vehicle of that user. (at least: claim 1- “allocate a predetermined value to each of the at least one charging station selected for each predetermined time period among a plurality of charging stations, based on at least one of a charging station preference of a driver, a charger type preference of the driver, a distance to a final destination, or a distance to a stop, and to recommend the optimal charging station, in accordance with the allocated predetermined value and real-time information of at least one vehicle associated with the at least one charging station, and wherein the congestion information and the vehicle information include at least one of an average daily time taken for charging, an estimated charging time, a charging start time, or a charging end time, and wherein the data application device is further configured to calculate a weight for each of the charging stations in real time, by considering an estimated available charging time of the at least one charging station, an estimated arrival time of the host vehicle, a required charging time, a congestion level of the charging station, a driver's preference, and a state of the host vehicle, based on the real-time information of the at least one vehicle and the real-time information of the at least one charging station, and to recommend the optimal charging station to the host vehicle in real time based on the calculated weight.”) It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Ricci’s existing features, with Yang’s feature of the proposal scenario includes a weighted sum of elements that include a preference characteristic value for each user and an environmental characteristic value in the vehicle of that user, to recommend optimal charging stations based on collected data – Yang, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per Claims 9, 19 , Ricci in view of Yang teach: wherein the proposal scenario includes information indicating a condition for transmitting the proposal information to a terminal apparatus, instead of to the in-vehicle apparatus. (Ricci teaches transmitting the content to a terminal apparatus – at least para 395) Claims 4, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Ricci (20140309927) in further view of Yang (12624956), in even further view of Pieri (20250266037). As per Claims 4, 14 , Ricci in view of Yang teach the scenario information, as noted above, and Pieri further teaches: Is configured to generate an equation to derive the weighted sum …using a large-scale language model (at least claim 5) It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Ricci’s existing features, combined with Yang’s existing feature , with Pieri’s feature of Is configured to generate an equation to derive the weighted sum …using a large-scale language model, since LLM models demonstrate excellent ability to generate text, tackle complex tasks, and generate content, rendering them valuable for a broad range of applications - Pieri, para 5. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Claims 5, 6, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Ricci (20140309927) in further view of Yang (12624956), in even further view of Casey (20070015519). As per Claims 5, 15 , Ricci in view of Yang teach the preference characteristic value, as noted above, and Casey further teaches: the preference characteristic value for each user includes a degree of preference of that user for a preference object derived from the attribute information on that user. (at least: claim 13) It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Ricci’s existing features, combined with Yang’s existing feature , with Casey’s feature of the preference characteristic value for each user includes a degree of preference of that user for a preference object derived from the attribute information on that user, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per Claims 6, 16 , Rich in view of Yang in further view of Casey teach the environmental characteristic value, as noted above. The further limitation of: wherein the environmental characteristic value in the vehicle of each user includes a value indicating whether the preference object of that user is on board, a value indicating a distance to a destination according to the preference object of that user, and a value indicating elapsed time from previous transmission of proposal information represents non-functional descriptive material that is entitled to little if any patentable weight per MPEP §2111.05 -i.e the limitation describes the environmental characteristic value, however there is no function associated with the descriptions, and thus the limitation represents non-functional descriptive material that is entitled to little if any patentable weight. Claims 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Ricci (20140309927) in further view of Yang (12624956), in even further view of Terada (20210180987). As per Claims 7, 17 , Ricci in view of Yang teach the controller/proposal information, as noted above, as well as the weighted data, and Terada further teaches: To transmit the proposal information on condition that the data/criteria has reached a reference value ( at least para 253) It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Ricci’s existing features, combined with Yang’s existing feature , with Terada’s feature of to transmit the proposal information on condition that the data/criteria has reached a reference value , since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Ricci (20140309927) in further view of Andersen (20250292286). As per Claim 11 , Ricci teaches the controller/proposal scenario and the user reaction, as noted above, and Andersen teaches: is configured to modify the proposal scenario using the information indicating the reaction. (at least claim 7) It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Ricci’s existing features, with Andersen’s feature of the controller is configured to modify the proposal scenario using the information indicating the reaction, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Bill (20060173841) teaches predicting a destination for a ground-based vehicle, the method comprising: accessing travel patterns; receiving a series of locations of a ground-based vehicle; relating at least some of the received locations to at least one accessed travel pattern; and predicting a destination of the ground-based vehicle based on relating the received locations to the travel patterns. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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). /Alexandru Cirnu/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622 6/15/2026 Application/Control Number: 19/263,237 Page 2 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 19/263,237 Page 3 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 19/263,237 Page 4 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 19/263,237 Page 5 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 19/263,237 Page 6 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 19/263,237 Page 7 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 19/263,237 Page 8 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 19/263,237 Page 9 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 19/263,237 Page 10 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 19/263,237 Page 11 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 19/263,237 Page 12 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 19/263,237 Page 13 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 19/263,237 Page 14 Art Unit: 3622
Prosecution Insights