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 .
This office action is in response to applicant amendment/remarks filed 11/19/2025. Claims 1-5 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-5 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5-6, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the drawing objection and the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection and the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-5 has been withdrawn. The applicant has amended the claims to capture a “navigation system” and the navigation system in Para. 0009 of the specifications include “The navigation system 10 is provided in a vehicle, and includes a control part 20 including a CPU, a RAM, a ROM, etc., and a recording medium 30. The navigation system 10 can execute, by the control part 20, programs stored in the recording medium 30 or the ROM.” Therefore, the claim limitations that are interpreted via 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-10 filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. After further consideration of example 37, the example 37 provides a method for rearranging icons on a GUI, wherein the method moves the most used icons to a position on the GUI that is closest to the start icon on the computer system, based on a determined amount of use. The amount of use is automatically determined by a processor that tracks the number of times each icon is selected or how much memory has been allocated to the individual processes associated with each icon over a period of time. These are explicitly recited in the claims, and the claims recite a practical application because automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage provides a specific improvement over prior systems. The present claims do not explicitly state “based on usage”, or the “amount of use” of the icon. The applicant points to Para. 0006, which discloses the “too much information can be prevented from being displayed”. This is not the same as determining an amount of use of the icons and automatically moving the icons based on the determined amount of use. Preventing information from being displayed is common in the art, and is not the same as “moving the most used icons to a position closest to the start icon based on the determined amount of use”. Deleting data is very common in the prior art on record, and does not present a practical application. Nowhere in the claims does it recite an amount of use (i.e. how much memory does it use) of the traffic congestion and/or the on-street parking space icons and then deleting the icon based on the amount of use. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection remains.
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:
A current location obtaining part in claim 1
A destination obtaining part in claim 1
A map information obtaining part in claim 1
A map display part in claim 1
A display control part in claim 1
An input part in claim 2
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. After further review of the specifications, it appears that the current location obtaining part, the destination obtaining part, the map information obtaining part, the map display part, and the display control part are supported in the specifications to perform the multiple claimed functions of claim 1. Para. 0009 of the specifications provide “FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a configuration of a navigation system 10 including a map display system according to one embodiment of the present invention. The navigation system 10 is provided in a vehicle, and includes a control part 20 including a CPU, a RAM, a ROM, etc., and a recording medium 30. The navigation system 10 can execute, by the control part 20, programs stored in the recording medium 30 or the ROM.” The navigation system 10 includes the control part 20 (which functions as a location obtaining part, destination obtaining part…etc.) and therefore these parts recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed limitations.
Additionally, the input part in claim 2 appears to be a “touch panel display” as recited in Para. 0016 of the specifications filed 06/21/2023, which recites sufficient structure to perform its claimed function.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-5 are directed to a method (i.e. a process).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1-5 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1:
A navigation system comprising:
A display for display map information;
A memory storing instructions;
A processor configured execute the stored instructions to implement:
a current location obtaining part that obtains a current location of a vehicle;
a destination obtaining part that obtains a destination of the vehicle;
a map information obtaining part that obtains map information;
a map display part that display in a display, based on the current location and the map information, a map including the current location and a traffic congestion icon on a display part, the traffic congestion icon indicating traffic congestion information of a road; and
a display control part that performs deletion of the traffic congestion icon and display of an on-street parking space icon on the map, when a distance between the current location and the destination reaches less than or equal to a first threshold value, the on-street parking space icon indicating a parking space on a street.
wherein when the current location of the vehicle is on a road of a road type where there is no on-road parking space, even if the distance between the current location and the destination becomes equal to or less than the first threshold value, the display of the congestion icon is not deleted and the on-road parking space icon is not displayed.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because user its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “displays, based on the current location and the map information, a map including the current location and a traffic congestion icon on a display part, the traffic congestion icon indicating traffic congestion information of a road” in the context of the claim encompasses a user judging when to display an icon and using drawing a current location on a map, and drawing a traffic congestion icon on the map based on data that has been obtained. The user can look at traffic congestion data and plot it on a map. Furthermore, the limitation “performs deletion of the traffic congestion icon and display of an on-street parking space icon on the map, when a distance between the current location and the destination reaches less than or equal to a first threshold value, the on-street parking space icon indicating a parking space on a street”, in the context of the claim encompasses the user mentally judging when to erase and replace an icon and manually erasing the drawn marker when data is received that shows that the distance between the current location and the destination reaches less than or equal to a first threshold value. Since the recited limitation include at least an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, then said limitation fall under the mental process concept. Furthermore, the limitation “wherein when the current location of the vehicle is on a road of a road type where there is no on-road parking space, even if the distance between the current location and the destination becomes equal to or less than the first threshold value, the display of the congestion icon is not deleted and the on-road parking space icon is not displayed” in the context of the claim encompasses the user not deleting an icon (i.e. choosing not to erase the drawn marker) and choosing not to draw the parking space icon when the location of the vehicle is on a road where there is no on-road parking space. Since this limitation can be drawn by a user, then this limitation recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and are not eligible.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1:
A map display system comprising:
A display for displaying map information;
A memory storing instructions;
A processor configured execute the stored instructions to implement:
a current location obtaining part that obtains a current location of a vehicle;
a destination obtaining part that obtains a destination of the vehicle;
a map information obtaining part that obtains map information;
a map display part that displays in a display, based on the current location and the map information, a map including the current location and a traffic congestion icon on a display part, the traffic congestion icon indicating traffic congestion information of a road; and
a display control part that performs deletion of the traffic congestion icon and display of an on-street parking space icon on the map, when a distance between the current location and the destination reaches less than or equal to a first threshold value, the on-street parking space icon indicating a parking space on a street.
wherein when the current location of the vehicle is on a road of a road type where there is no on-road parking space, even if the distance between the current location and the destination becomes equal to or less than the first threshold value, the display of the congestion icon is not deleted and the on-road parking space icon is not displayed.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “obtaining a current location, obtaining a destination of the vehicle, and obtaining map information “the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (i.e. processors) to perform the process. In particular, obtaining step by the processors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “one or more processors” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. Furthermore, the step of displaying data is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. as a means of displaying data), and merely uses a display to perform the process.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1,8, and 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determining and comparing amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, with regards to the additional limitations of “obtaining data” and “displaying data”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “obtaining data” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the data is obtained from a database and sensor data, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional processor. The step of “obtaining” data is taught in the primary reference HIRANO HIDEAKI JP2009092559A, see Para. 0008-0011. Accordingly, the step of obtaining/collecting data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Furthermore, the step of displaying a map is taught in the primary reference HIRANO HIDEAKI JP2009092559A, see Para. 0008. Showing a map on a display is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept and the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
wherein when the distance between the current location and the destination reaches less than or equal to a first threshold value, the display control part displays, on the display part, an input part for inputting an instruction to switch between the traffic congestion icon and the on-street parking space icon, and the deletion of the traffic congestion icon and the display of the on-street parking space icon are performed when an instruction to switch the traffic congestion icon to the on-street parking space icon is provided through the input part.
Regarding claim 2, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user drawing/erasing the traffic congestion icon and the on-street parking icon based on an instruction to switch by the user, which can be done by a user drawing on a map, and then drawing/erasing the icons based on the user wanting to change between the traffic congestion icon and the on-street parking icon. Since this limitation can be done by drawing/erasing an icon on a map, then this limitation recites an abstract idea.
Claim 3:
wherein the on-street parking space icon displayed on the map is an icon indicating a parking space whose distance from a reference point on the map displayed on the display part is less than or equal to a second threshold value, and the first threshold value is larger than the second threshold value
Regarding claim 3, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the same limitation as recited in claim 1, except that this limitation is based on a “reference point” instead of a “destination”. Therefore, the same rational applies from claim 1, wherein the user can draw an icon on a map when it is determined that the distance is less than or equal to a second threshold value. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 4:
wherein the on-street parking space icon displayed on the map is an icon indicating a parking space whose distance to the destination is less than or equal to a third threshold value, and the first threshold value is larger than the third threshold value.
Regarding claim 4, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the same limitation as recited in claim 1, except that this step is done when the distance to the destination is less than or equal to a third threshold value. Therefore, the same rational applies from claim 1, wherein the user can draw an icon on a map when it is determined that the distance is less than or equal to a second threshold value. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 5:
wherein the traffic congestion icon and the on-street parking space icon have a same form.
Regarding claim 5, the bolded limitation describes what shape (form) a traffic icon and a parking space icon needs to be. This shape can be drawn by a user, and therefore this limitation recites at least one abstract idea since it can easily be drawn by a user.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669