DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-22 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments (Pre-Appeal Brief) filed on 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
2A. Regarding the arguments in page 1, “The clear error is the failure of the cited references to disclose at least "causing the computing device to present, in a user interface, information corresponding to the plurality of points of interest the presented information including presentation of the second distance for each of the plurality of points of interest,"
It is still Examiner’s apposition that, Tu has such teachings See [0056], Figs. 5AA-5B
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
TU teaches, as second distance from route departure point to destination 63 (see Fig. 6AA above).
2B. Applicants argue , “the presented information including presentation of the second distance for each of the plurality of points of interest”.
It is still Examiner’s apposition that, Tu has such teachings , a second distance from route departure point to destination (point of interest), see Fig. 6AA above.
2C. Applicants argue that Tu does not teach, “where the presented second distance is a "driving distance to travel from the route departure point to the point of interest," as recited in the independent claims”.
It is still Examiner’s apposition that, Tu has such teachings , a second distance from route departure point to destination see Fig. 6AA above.
2D. Applicant argues that, “None of the cited references disclose or even suggest a "route departure point from which to deviate from the planned route of travel to the point of interest" and therefore cannot display a driving distance from such a route departure point to the POI.”
It is still Examiner’s apposition that, Tu has such teachings , route departure point see above (Fig.5A) from which to deviate from the planned route of travel to the point of interest (destination).
For at least the above reasons, the rejection of claims is believed to be proper and is hereby maintained and repeated as follows:
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). Diagrams showing display screen, where the screen includes a list of POI (point of interest) entries with corresponding entry value indicators and information window where the listed entries are classified by distance range showing total distance including presentation of a first and a second distance for each of the plurality of points of interest (POI), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 recites: determining, a current location of a computing device using GPS signals, the computing device travelling along a planned route; for each of a plurality of points of interest: determining, a route departure point from which to deviate from the planned route to travel to the point of interest; determining, a first driving distance to travel from the current location to the route departure point and a second driving distance to travel from the route departure point to the point of interest;
determining, a total distance by aggregating the first driving distance and the second driving distance; and causing the computing device to present, in a user interface, information corresponding to the plurality of points of interest sorted according to the total distances, the presented information including presentation of the second distance for each of the plurality of points of interest.
The limitations from claim 1, determining, a current location of a computing device using GPS signals, the computing device travelling along a planned route; ( a person is typing in his smart phone in google map, a destination as an airport, he is seeing his current location, and plurality of POIs on mobile phone); determining, a route departure point from which to deviate from the planned route to travel to the point of interest; ( the person is also seeing different routes and a point to depart from main route to take local lane to go to the POI); determining, a first driving distance to travel from the current location to the route departure point and a second driving distance to travel from the route departure point to the point of interest; ( the person is looking at the smart phone screen and determining (figuring out in his mind) a first driving distance from current location to the main route departure point, and a second distance in local lane from departure point to go to the POI); determining, a total distance by aggregating the first driving distance and the second driving distance; ( the person is calculating in his mind the total distance); and causing the computing device to present, in a user interface, information corresponding to the plurality of points of interest sorted according to the total distances, the presented information including presentation of the second distance for each of the plurality of points of interest.(the person is zooming in the map to see POIs and second distance on the map); which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a mental process, more specifically, a concept performed in the human mind of determining current location; determining a route departure point from which to deviate from the planned route; determining a first driving distance and a second driving distance to travel to the point of interest; determining a total distance; causing the computing device to present, information corresponding to the plurality of points of interest.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation a certain method of a concept performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim recites processors, that are recited only very high level of generality and nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. Thus claim 1 recites a mental process.
Therefore Claim 1 is abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claim is abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). In particular, the claims only recite the steps of: determining current location; determining a route departure point…; determining a first and second driving distance… determining a total distance; presenting POIs information.
These steps amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. At least the “causing to present” “(presenting)” is considered to be post-solution activity and it does not appear to be more than what is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (WURC). The MPEP provides support that the additional limitations in the claim are directed to well-understood routine and conventional steps:
MPEP 2106.05(d) II recites:
II. ELEMENTS THAT THE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED AS WELL-UNDERSTOOD, ROUTINE, CONVENTIONAL ACTIVITY IN PARTICULAR FIELDS
Because examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, as elements that describe well-understood, routine activities, the following section provides examples of elements that have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields. It should be noted, however, that many of these examples failed to satisfy other Step 2B considerations (e.g., because they were recited at a high level of generality and thus were mere instructions to apply an exception, or were insignificant extra-solution activity). Thus, examiners should carefully analyze additional elements in a claim with respect to all relevant Step 2B considerations, including this consideration, before making a conclusion as to whether they amount to an inventive concept.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681,1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
The MPEP further recites with respect to claims directed to insignificant solution activity:
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:
iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, on or with the use of generic computer components, or even without any computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more).
The limitations of the dependent claims 2-6, 8 and 21 further describe the identified abstract idea. The generic computer component perform routine and conventional function that is not significantly more that the abstract idea identified above. None of the dependent claims when taken separately in combination with each dependent claims parent claim overcome the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
7. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14, 16-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tu (USP 2004/0260465) in view of Feng (USP 2009/0216732).
As Per Claim 1, Tu teaches, a method comprising: determining, by one or more processors, a current location of a computing device using GPS signals, the computing device travelling along a planned route; (Abstracts, [0045], Fig.3); for each of a plurality of points of interest: determining, by the one or more processors ( CPU 39, Fig.3) , a route departure point from which to deviate from the planned route to travel to the point of interest; ( via to travel to destination , See Fig 6AA below):
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
determining, by the one or more processors, a first driving distance to travel from the current location to the route departure point and a second driving distance to travel from the route departure point to the point of interest; ( See Fig.6AA above) ([0009-0013], [0016], [0018-0021]); determining, by the one or more processors, a total distance by aggregating the first driving distance and the second driving distance ( See Fig.6AA above) ; ([0024], [0081-0089]); ([0045]).
However, Tu does not explicitly teach, causing the computing device to present, in a user interface, information corresponding to the plurality of points of interest sorted according to the total distances, the presented information including presentation of the second distance for each of the plurality of points of interest.
In a related field of art, Feng teaches, a method and apparatus for a navigation system enables to search and display candidate objects by arranging them in a plurality of ranges of desired parameters, wherein, causing the computing device to present, in a user interface, information corresponding to the plurality of points of interest sorted according to the total distances, ( via showing total distance from current location to the POI , which includes both first and second distance from the current location to point of interest (POI), as suggested in “Figs. 5A-5C.. “the POI entries 81F-81H are the corresponding entry value indicators 85A-85C to show an actual distance value to the location of each of the POIs”, [0045]… In Fig.5A , “the entry 81F ("YUMMIE TREE CAFE") is the closest POI that is located at about 0.2 miles from the current position, followed by the entry 81G ("MILLS RESTAURANT") that is located at about 0.6 miles from the current position where such actual values of the distance are indicated by the corresponding entry value indicators 85A-85C.[0046]” In Fig. 5B…“the POI entries are listed in the order of distance from the current vehicle position. Thus, the entry 81F ("DULAN'S RESTAURANT") that is located at about 10.1 miles from the current position is listed first followed by the entry 81G ("AFRICAN SUYA FOODS") that is located at about 11.0 miles from the current position” [0047]).. In Fig.5C .. “the entry 81F ("BAROUCH MOROCCAN") which is located at 8.7 miles from the current position is displayed”, [0049]. In Fig. 6I. .”the entry 81F ("BASE BALL 3A") is listed first whose location is 5.2 miles from the current vehicle position”,[0065])… In Fig. 6J.. “the entry 81F ("235 CULVER ST") is listed first whose location is 10.1 miles from the current vehicle position. The second one is the entry 81G ("120 TOWN CENTER DR") which is located at 13.0 miles away from the current position”,[0067]”. Feng displays ,Yumme Tree café at 0.2 mile (Fig.5A), Dulan’s Restaurant at 10.1 miles (Fig. 5B) , 235 Culver St at 10.1 miles (Fig.6J] from current vehicle location).
Further Feng does not explicitly teach, the total distances, the presented information including presentation of the second distance for each of the plurality of points of interest.
However, Tu teaches, total distance including the first distance and the second distance (See Tu : Fig.6AA).
For presenting information regarding total distance to point of interest (destination) as in Feng, it would be obvious to output total distance including second distance for each point of interest.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tu and Feng before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Tu, to include the teachings (navigation software) of Feng and configure with the system of Tu in order to present actual distance (total distance) value to POI on screen including a second distance. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to facilitate user’s POI selection based on distance from current location to the POI point (i.e., cost assessment).
As per Claim 2, Tu as modified by Feng teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Tu in view of Feng further teaches, receiving, by the one or more processors, a request by a user of the computing device via the user interface, wherein causing the computing device to present the information is responsive to receiving the request. (Tu [0006-0009]), Figs. 1A-1H, Feng : [0043-004], Figs. 5A-5B)
As per Claim 3, Tu as modified by Feng teaches the limitation of Claim 2. However, Tu in view of Feng further teaches, wherein the request is associated with a point of interest category, wherein the plurality of points of interest is associated with the point of interest category. (Tu ([0011-0016], Feng : [0043-0048], Figs. 5A-6F).
As per Claim 4, Tu as modified by Feng teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Tu in view of Feng further teaches, wherein the user interface includes one or more of an "I need gas" button, an "I need a hotel" button, and an "I need food" button. ((Tu : Figs. 6C, 6H, 8B), Feng : Figs. 4-6F).
As per Claim 6, Tu as modified by Feng teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Tu in view of Feng further teaches, wherein the first distance and the second distance are determined using driving distances along roads (See Tu : Fig. 6AA, Above).
As per Claim 8, Tu as modified by Feng teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Tu in view of Feng further teaches, wherein causing the computing device to present the information comprises: causing the computing device to present, in the user interface, the total distance of each of the plurality of points of interest (Feng : Figs. 5A-5C, 6I-6J).
Claim 9 is being rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
As per Claim 10, Tu as modified by Feng teaches the limitation of Claim 9. However, Tu in view of Feng further teaches, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive a request by a user of the computing device via the user interface, wherein causing the computing device to present the information is responsive to receiving the request (Tu [0006-0009]), Figs. 1A-1H, Feng : [0043-004], Figs. 5A-5B).
As per Claim 11, Tu as modified by Feng teaches the limitation of Claim 10. However, Tu in view of Feng further teaches, wherein the request is associated with a point of interest category, wherein the plurality of points of interest is associated with the point of interest category. (Tu ([0011-0016], Feng : [0043-0048], Figs. 5A-6F).
As per Claim 12, Tu as modified by Feng teaches the limitation of Claim 9. However, Tu in view of Feng further teaches, wherein the user interface includes one or more of an "I need gas" button, an "I need a hotel" button, and an "I need food" button. ((Tu : Figs. 6C, 6H, 8B), Feng : Figs. 4-6F).
As per Claim 14, Tu as modified by Feng teaches the limitation of Claim 9. However, Tu in view of Feng further teaches, wherein the first distance and the second distance are determined using driving distances along roads. (Tu : Fig. 6AA above).
As per Claim 16, Tu as modified by Feng teaches the limitation of Claim 9. However, Tu in view of Feng further teaches, wherein cause the computing device to present the information comprises: cause the computing device to present, in the user interface, the total distance of each of the plurality of points of interest. (Feng : Figs. 5A-5C, 6I-6J).
Claim 17 is being rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
As per Claim 18, Tu as modified by Feng teaches the limitation of Claim 17. However, Tu in view of Feng further teaches, wherein the routing engine is further adapted to: receive a request by a user of the computing device via the user interface, wherein causing the computing device to present the information is responsive to receiving the request. (Tu [0006-0009]), Figs. 1A-1H, Feng : [0043-004], Figs. 5A-5B).
As per Claim 19, Tu as modified by Feng teaches the limitation of Claim 18. However, Tu in view of Feng further teaches, wherein the request is associated with a point of interest category, wherein the plurality of points of interest is associated with the point of interest category. (Tu ([0011-0016], Feng : [0043-0048], Figs. 5A-6F).
As per Claim 20, Tu as modified by Feng teaches the limitation of Claim 17. However, Tu in view of Feng further teaches, wherein the user interface includes one or more of an "I need gas" button, an "I need a hotel" button, and an "I need food" button. ((Tu : Figs. 6C, 6H, 8B), Feng : Figs. 4-6F).
As per Claims 21, Tu as modified by Feng teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Tu in view of Feng further teaches, wherein the presented information further includes presentation of the first distance. ( Tu : See Fig.6AA above).
As per Claims 22, Tu as modified by Feng teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Tu in view of Feng further teaches, wherein the information presented in the user interface further includes the first distance for each of the plurality of points of interest ( Tu : See Fig. 6AA above).
8. Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tu (USP 2004/0260465) in view of Feng (USP 2009/0216732) in view of Xu et al. ( USP 2004/0143666).
As per Claims 5 and 13 , Tu as modified by Feng teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Tu teaches, determining the first distance and the second distance (See Tu Fig.6AA below and also see( [0056], [0058]).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Tu in view of Feng does not explicitly teach, determining the distances
using Euclidean distances.
In a related field of Art, Xu teaches, method and apparatus for mapping peers to an overlay network, wherein determining the distances using Euclidean distances ( via “a routing module 450 calculating Euclidean distance between the peer executing the routing module 450 to each of the nodes returned in the coordinate maps. The routing module 450 may select the node with the lowest value of Euclidean distance. In another embodiment, the routing module 450 may use the Euclidean distance to select a user-specified number of candidates and use the round-trip measurements to identify the actual closest peer among the candidates”, ([0092]). Also see [0070], [0083], [0093], [0103], Fig.9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tu and Feng and Xu before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Tu, to include the navigation teachings (processors, software etc.) of Xu and configure with the system of Tu in order to calculate distance by using Euclidean distance to attain precise distance. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to precise travel distance (i.e., an added feature to enhance trip to destination).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C