DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim Status
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on 9/16/2025. Claims 1-8 are pending and considered below.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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:
“sound output device” (claims 1-8) and “voice output device” (claims 2-8) are a speaker, as disclosed in applicant’s specification, paragraph [0049] (PGPub), FIG. 1, in-vehicle apparatus-100, and speaker-150, and FIG. 2, in-vehicle apparatus-100, controller-101, and voice output module-105.
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.
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
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 1-8 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 integrating the judicial exception into a practical application and without an additional element which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 1-8, step 1 analysis, the subject matter of claims 1-8 is included in the four patent-eligible subject matter categories (e.g., process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). Claims 1-8 are directed to an apparatus (a controller and a speaker).
Claims 1-8 are directed to a judicial exception. The claim limitations recite a revised step 2A, prong one, abstract idea (a mental process involving observation and evaluation which could be performed in the human mind). Claims 1-8 are directed to an apparatus for calculating a current distance from the current location of a vehicle to a destination of the vehicle and generating voice data using content information according to the current distance. This limitation is a simple process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claims encompass a passenger checking the distance to an event and determining to provide a driver with information about the event based on the distance. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Claims 1-8 include the revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements of obtaining a current location of a vehicle and outputting voice data. Obtaining a current location of a vehicle is data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Outputting voice data is insignificant post-solution activity. Claims 1-8 do not recite revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1-8 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (vehicle navigation systems).
Claims 1-8 include the step 2B additional elements of a controller and a sound output device (speaker). Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the controller and speaker are anything other than conventional controllers and speakers. Calculating distances is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when claimed using a generic controller. Outputting voice data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when claimed using a generic speaker. Controllers and speakers are widely prevalent and in common use in vehicle navigation systems. Controllers and speakers are not significantly more than the judicial exception since they are well-understood, routine and conventional features previously known to the vehicle navigation system industry. Therefore, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
See, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, which is available on the USPTO Website.
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 2-8 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.
The claims should use the word “a” or “an” the first time an element is introduced, and should use “the” or “said” during subsequent use.
Terms should be used consistently in all claims, including dependent claims.
Regarding claims 2-5, “the voice output device” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 6-8 depend on claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-2024/0062432-A1, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses:
An information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to execute: (paragraphs [0228-0244]; FIG. 7, controller-170; and FIG. 8, vehicle-100, augmented reality (AR) service device-800, and server-900);
obtaining a current location of a vehicle (paragraphs [0151] and [0159]; and FIG. 7, communication apparatus-400, location information unit-420, and processor-470);
calculating a current distance from the current location of a vehicle to a destination of the vehicle (paragraphs [0451-0452]);
outputting, from a sound output device (paragraphs [0087] and [0096]; and FIG. 7, user interface apparatus-200, audio output module-252, and processor-270);
a voice data generated using a content information according to the current distance (paragraphs [0087], [0096] and [0451-0452]); and
the content information is selected according to the current distance from among a plurality of candidates of the content information published on a website related to an event to be held at the destination of the vehicle (paragraphs [0295] and [0444-0452]).
Regarding claim 2, Lee further discloses:
wherein, the outputting the voice data from the voice output device in accordance with the current location is including: (paragraphs [0087], [0096] and [0451-0452]);
when the current distance is not longer than a first distance and is longer than a second distance, outputting a first voice data generated from a first content information corresponding to the first distance from the voice output device (paragraphs [0295] and [0444-0452]);
when the current distance is not longer than a second distance, outputting a second voice data generated from a second content information corresponding to the second distance from the voice output device (paragraphs [0295] and [0444-0452]);
wherein, the second distance is shorter than the first distance (paragraphs [0295] and [0444-0452]);
the first content information includes an information regarding an overview of the event (paragraphs [0295] and [0444-0452]); and
the second content information includes an information regarding details of the event (paragraphs [0295] and [0444-0452]).
Claims 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Mandalia (US-2023/0288218-A1, hereinafter Mandalia).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Lee does not disclose allowing, when a spot where voice guidance is to be performed is not included within a predetermined range, output of voice data according to a distance corresponding to a current distance. However, Mandalia discloses a navigation system which manages an audio interaction based on cognitive load, including delayed delivery of the audio interaction, including the following features:
wherein, the outputting the voice data from the voice output device in accordance with the current location is including: (paragraphs [0039-0042]; and FIG. 1, navigation system-100, voice assistant coordinator (VAC) - 110, user-112, current route-113, voice assistant module-114, navigation instruction-120, and audio interaction-124);
determining whether a spot for providing voice guidance regarding a route to the destination is included within a predetermined range from current location of the vehicle (paragraphs [0085-0096] and [0154]; FIG. 3, activate in-vehicle sensor array-302, send sensor data packet-304, generate route detail (RD) - 306, send route detail-308, calculate cognitive load-310, cognitive load (CL) - 312, cognitive load threshold (THR) - 313, manage voice assistant based on CL-314, and time window (TIME WIN) - 316; and FIG. 6, transmitting a sensor data packet-602, receiving a route detail-604, calculating a cognitive load-606, and managing audio interaction based on the cognitive load-608); and
allowing, when the spot where voice guidance is to be performed is not included within the predetermined range, output of the voice data according to the distance corresponding to the current distance (paragraphs [0085-0096] and [0154]).
Mandalia teaches that a navigation system which includes a voice assistant coordinator (VAC) and provides navigation instructions should time delivery of information based on a cognitive load of the driver (paragraphs [0085-0096] and [0154]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vehicle navigation system which times delivery of voice data based on driver cognitive load of Mandalia into the vehicle navigation system which varies the level of detail of information provided to a driver depending on a distance between a current location of a vehicle and a destination of Lee. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing driver distraction due to excessive information.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Lee does not disclose allowing, when a curved road is not included within a predetermined range, output of voice data according to a distance corresponding to a current distance. However, Mandalia further discloses:
wherein, the output of the voice data from the voice output device is including: (paragraphs [0039-0042]; and FIG. 1, navigation system-100, voice assistant coordinator (VAC) - 110, user-112, current route-113, voice assistant module-114, navigation instruction-120, and audio interaction-124);
determining whether a curve is included within a predetermined range from current location of the vehicle (paragraphs [0085-0096] and [0154]; FIG. 3, activate in-vehicle sensor array-302, send sensor data packet-304, generate route detail (RD) - 306, send route detail-308, calculate cognitive load-310, cognitive load (CL) - 312, cognitive load threshold (THR) - 313, manage voice assistant based on CL-314, and time window (TIME WIN) - 316; and FIG. 6, transmitting a sensor data packet-602, receiving a route detail-604, calculating a cognitive load-606, and managing audio interaction based on the cognitive load-608); and
allowing, when the curved road is not included within the predetermined range, output of the voice data according to the distance corresponding to the current distance (paragraphs [0085-0096] and [0154]).
Mandalia teaches that a navigation system which includes a voice assistant coordinator (VAC) and provides navigation instructions should time delivery of information based on a cognitive load of the driver (paragraphs [0085-0096] and [0154]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vehicle navigation system which times delivery of voice data based on driver cognitive load of Mandalia into the vehicle navigation system which varies the level of detail of information provided to a driver depending on a distance between a current location of a vehicle and a destination of Lee. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing driver distraction due to excessive information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Otani et al. (US-2010/0268453-A1) discloses a vehicle navigation device configured to output a guidance voice in which a message is completed at an appropriate time with respect to a reference point. An utterance start distance increases as the duration of a guidance voice message increases and as the vehicle speed increases (Abstract).
Verwey (Further Evidence for Benefits of Verbal Route Guidance Instructions over Symbolic Spatial Guidance Instructions, IEEE Vehicle Navigation & Information Systems Conference, Ottawa - VNIS ’93, October 12-15, 1993, pp. 227-231) discloses that vehicle navigation instructions should basically be oral although arrows or map-like images may be used to support oral presentations (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA L WEBER whose telephone number is (303)297-4249. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 MTN.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 3134464821. 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.
TAMARA L. WEBER
Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/TAMARA L WEBER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights