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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responded to the amendment filed on 07/03/2025.
According to the amendment filed on 07/03/2025:
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 8 and 16 have been canceled.
Claims 17 and 18 have been added.
Claims 2-7, 10-15 are as previously presented.
Response to Argument
Applicant argues regarding to 112(a) rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Nowhere in the specification is there a sufficient disclosure that teaches or enable the claim limitation and how the claim limitation is carried out. Therefore, the rejection under 112(a) is maintained.
Additionally, applicant argues both Koch and Saze alone or in combination does not teach the limitation “automatically purchasing tickets to a location having an entrance fee, based upon the matches and the information.” Applicant’s argument is respectfully traversed.
Koch in view of Saze disclose automatically purchasing tickets to a location having an entrance fee, based upon the matches and the information (automatically pay for the toll when vehicle pass through it – see include but are not limited to Saze paragraphs 0006, 0030). Applicant argues that automatically paying a toll is not the same as automatically purchasing a ticket to a location requiring an entry fee. However, in both scenarios, the user must make a payment before gaining access to a restricted area or service. In the case of toll road, payment is required at the toll checkpoint before entry onto the road is permitted, similar to how an entry fee must be paid before accessing a location. The underlying principle in both case is the same, an automated system facilitates payment to authorize access to a specific location or path, whether that location is a toll road or another fee-based destination. Therefore, applicant’s fails to overcome the rejection, 103 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (New Matter)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In accordance with section 2161.01 I. of the MPEP, “original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349, 94 USPQ2d at 1171 (“[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention’s boundaries.”) (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1405-06). In Ariad, the court recognized the problem of using functional claim language without providing in the specification examples of species that achieve the claimed function. The problem is especially acute with genus claims that use functional language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In such a case, the functional claim may simply claim a desired result, and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus. Id.” This may include disclosure of the hardware and software required to perform a claimed function including the "necessary steps for implementing the claimed function" (e.g. an algorithm, description of steps, flowcharts, etc.) (MPEP; 2161.01 I.). “If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.” (MPEP; 2161.01 I.).
The claims were amended to include the following limitations:
Claims 1 and 9 recite the phrase “automatically purchasing tickets to a location having an entrance fee, based upon the matches and the information.” This limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Examiner cannot find any discussion/disclosure in regards to automatically purchasing tickets to a location having an entrance fee, based upon the matches and the information or equivalent in the specification. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made. See MPEP § 2161.01(I).
Applicant is encouraged to identify the relevant portions of the disclosure that support this limitation. In other words, the disclosure does not support this particular embodiment, and this limitation is unsupported new matter. A skilled artisan would not have understood that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole at the time the application was filed. Per the MPEP section 2163 “if a claim is amended to include subject matter, limitations, or terminology not present in the application as filed, involving a departure from, addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application as filed, the examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter is not described in that application. This conclusion will result in the rejection of the claims affected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112, first paragraph.”
Each of the dependent claims inherit this deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al. (US 20240345577) in view of Saze et al. (US 20050168351).
Regarding claim 1, Koch disclose a non-transitory computer readable storage device (non-transitory computer- readable storage – see paragraph 0232) storing computer executable instructions that when executed by a computer controls the computer to perform a method for coordinating history with geographical coordinates, the method comprising (method for coordinating visited location with geographical coordinates – see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0007,0091-0092 ): providing an electronic database, wherein the electronic database has information tied to specific geographic coordinates (the databased has information tied to a specific coordinate – see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0006-0007) ; accessing a global navigation satellite system, the global navigation satellite system providing at least one geographic coordinate of an associated user (have access to GPS system, where GPS provide at least one coordinate – see include but are not limited to paragraph 0071); searching the electronic database for matches of the at least one geographic coordinate of the associated user with a nearby geographic coordinate in the electronic database (searching the database for geo-located objects (GLOBs) the nearby coordinate of the user – see includes but are not limited to 0061, 0074, 0078-0080, 0303) , wherein the searching of the electronic database is automatically continuous (searching in the database is automated if another collection of GLOBS exists – see paragraphs 0072, 0095); providing a list of the matches (providing a list of GLOBS – see Fig. 7 paragraph 0115); and providing playback options for the associated user, wherein the playback options are chosen from the group consisting of audio files, video files, text files, and image files (providing displayed options for the user, where the animation of the displays are chosen from group consisting of maps, videos, location log, images – see includes but are not limited to Fig.1 paragraphs 0064-0065, 0073-0077).
However, Koch does not explicitly disclose automatically purchasing tickets to a location having an entrance fee.
Saze discloses automatically purchasing tickets to a location having an entrance fee based on matched information (automatically pay for the toll based on matches information when vehicle pass through it – see include but are not limited to paragraph 0006, 0030-0031).
Koch and Saze are analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention-namely controlling of autonomous vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Koch with the teaching of automatically purchasing tickets to a location having an entrance fee as taught by Saze in order to yield predicable result of increase in conveniency for the user [0071].
Regarding claim 2, Koch in view of Saze disclose the method of claim 1, as discussed supra with respect to the same
Koch teaches, wherein the method further comprises: entering a route map of a route chosen by the associated user into the electronic database; automatically matching the information tied to specific geographic coordinates with the geographic coordinates along the route; and automatically displaying at least one of the playback options when the associated user reaches the geographic coordinates associated with the information (inserting the chosen route and automatically matching the GLOBs along the route, displaying at least one animation of the associated with the coordinate – see includes but are not limited to Koch Fig 7. Paragraphs 0073- 0077).
Regarding claim 3, Koch in view of Saze disclose the method of claim 1, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Koch teaches, wherein the playback options are displayed using at least of the group consisting of a touchscreen, audio speakers, an electronic mobile device, Bluetooth speakers, text to speech, video player, and electronic text (the animate option are displayed using a computer or mobile device – see includes but are not limited to Koch Fig 7. Paragraph 0128).
Regarding claim 4, Koch in view of Saze disclose the method of claim 3, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Koch teaches, wherein the information is chosen from the group consisting of historical information, sports information, geological information, biological information, trivia information, topographical information, biographical information, military information, and chronological information (information is chosen from the group consisting of location log (history of locations) or geologic information – see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0061, 0091).
Regarding claim 6, Koch in view of Saze disclose the method of claim 5, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Koch teaches, wherein the method further comprises: delivering instructions to a self-driving vehicle to automatically drive to a geographic coordinate based on the matches (delivering instructions to an unmanned automated vehicle to drive to a coordinate based on the GLOBs – see includes but are not limited to Koch paragraphs 0061-0063)
Regarding claim 7, Koch in view of Saze disclose the method of claim 6, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Koch teaches, wherein the method further comprises: automatically sharing the information with at least one other associated user (sharing information with at least one other user – see includes but are not limited to Koch Fig.15, paragraphs 0095, 0140).
Regarding claim 9, Koch disclose an electronic device containing non-transitory computer readable storage device storing computer executable instructions that when executed by a computer controls the computer to perform a method for coordinating history with geographical coordinates, the method comprising (method for coordinating visited location with geographical coordinates – see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0007,0091-0092 ): providing an electronic database, wherein the electronic database has information tied to specific geographic coordinates (the databased has information tied to a specific coordinate – see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0006-0007) ; accessing a global navigation satellite system, the global navigation satellite system providing at least one geographic coordinate of an associated user (have access to GPS system, where GPS provide at least one coordinate – see include but are not limited to paragraph 0071); searching the electronic database for matches of the at least one geographic coordinate of the associated user with a nearby geographic coordinate in the electronic database (searching the database for geo-located objects (GLOBs) the nearby coordinate of the user – see includes but are not limited to 0061, 0074, 0078-0080, 0303) , wherein the searching of the electronic database is automatically continuous (searching in the database is automated if another collection of GLOBS exists – see paragraphs 0072, 0095); providing a list of the matches (providing a list of GLOBS – see Fig. 7 paragraph 0115); and providing playback options for the associated user, wherein the playback options are chosen from the group consisting of audio files, video files, text files, and image files (providing displayed options for the user, where the animation of the displays are chosen from group consisting of maps, videos, location log, images – see includes but are not limited to Fig.1 paragraphs 0064-0065, 0073-0077).
However, Koch does not explicitly disclose automatically purchasing tickets to a location having an entrance fee.
Saze discloses automatically purchasing tickets to a location having an entrance fee based on matched information (automatically pay for the toll based on matches information when vehicle pass through it – see include but are not limited to paragraph 0006, 0030-0031).
Koch and Saze are analogous art because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention-namely controlling of autonomous vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Koch with the teaching of automatically purchasing tickets to a location having an entrance fee as taught by Saze in order to yield predicable result of increase in conveniency for the user [0071].
Regarding claim 10, Koch in view of Saze disclose the device of claim 9, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Koch teaches, wherein the device further comprises: a route map of a route chosen by the associated user into the electronic database, wherein the information tied to specific geographic coordinates is automatically matched with the geographic coordinates along the route; and automatically displaying at least one of the playback options when the associated user reaches the geographic coordinates associated with the information (inserting the chosen route and automatically matching the GLOBs along the route, displaying at least one animation of the associated with the coordinate – see includes but are not limited to Koch Fig 7. Paragraphs 0073- 0077).
Regarding claim 11, Koch in view of Saze disclose the device of claim 10, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Koch teaches, wherein the playback options are displayed using at least of the group consisting of a touchscreen, audio speakers, an electronic mobile device, Bluetooth speakers, text to speech, video player, and electronic text (the animate option are displayed using a computer or mobile device – see includes but are not limited to Koch Fig 7. Paragraph 0128).
Regarding claim 12, Koch in view of Saze disclose the device of claim 3, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Koch teaches, wherein the information is chosen from the group consisting of historical information, sports information, geological information, biological information, trivia information, topographical information, biographical information, military information, and chronological information (information is chosen from the group consisting of location log (history of locations) or geologic information – see includes but are not limited to Koch paragraphs 0061, 0091).
Regarding claim 14, Koch in view of Saze disclose the device of claim 13, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Koch teaches, wherein the device further comprises: executable instructions for delivering instructions to a self-driving vehicle to automatically drive to a geographic coordinate based on the matches (delivering instructions to an unmanned automated vehicle to drive to a coordinate based on the GLOBs – see includes but are not limited to Koch paragraphs 0061-0063).
Regarding claim 15, Koch in view of Saze disclose the device of claim 14, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Koch teaches, wherein the device further comprises: executable instructions for automatically sharing the information with at least one other associated user (sharing information with at least one other user – see includes but are not limited to Koch Fig.15, paragraphs 0095, 0140).
Regarding claim 17, Koch in view of Saze disclose the device of claim 4, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Koch teaches, wherein the information is chosen from the group consisting of sports information, trivia information, and military information (the location information can be any location that been identified – see include but are not limited to Koch paragraph 0088-0092).
Regarding claim 18, Koch in view of Saze disclose the device of claim 12, as discussed supra with respect to the same.
Koch teaches, wherein the information is chosen from the group consisting of sports information, trivia information, and military information (the location information can be any location that been identified – see include but are not limited to Koch paragraph 0088-0092).
Claims 5, 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al. (US 20240345577) in view of Saze et al. (US 20050168351) and in further view of Antony et al (US 20190113351).
Regarding claim 5, Koch in view of Saze discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the method further comprises: automatically creating an updated matches and the information (automatically geocoding a collection of GLOBs there for continuously updating the GLOBs with new information – see paragraph 0072)
However, Koch in view of Saze does not explicitly disclose automatically creating an updated route map.
Antony discloses automatically creating an updated route map (automatically modify the path of the autonomous vehicle – see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0038, 0110)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Koch in view of Saze with the teaching of automatically creating an updated route map as taught by Koch in order to yield predicable result of continuously provides the driver with the most recent map information.
Regarding claim 13, Koch in view of Saze discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the method further comprises: automatically creating an updated matches and the information (automatically geocoding a collection of GLOBs there for continuously updating the GLOBs with new information – see paragraph 0072)
However, Koch in view of Saze does not explicitly disclose automatically creating an updated route map.
Antony discloses automatically creating an updated route map (automatically modify the path of the autonomous vehicle – see includes but are not limited to paragraphs 0038, 0110)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Koch in view of Saze with the teaching of automatically creating an updated route map as taught by Koch in order to yield predicable result of continuously provides the driver with the most recent map information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Lahcanski et al. (US 20140073361) discloses transferring location data into geographic coordinates.
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 AI KIM TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Thursday 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, Christian Chace can be reached on (571) 272-4190. 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.
/A.K.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665