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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first office action on the merits, claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 03/05/2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the IDS is enclosed herewith.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a machine which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites:
A method for altering a destination during a navigation session, the method comprising:
receiving, at one or more processors, a geographic query;
identifying, by the one or more processors, a set of points of interest (POls) responsive to the geographic query, wherein one of the set of POIs is selected as an active destination for a user;
storing, by the one or more processors, one or more other POIs in the set as alternative destinations; and
during a navigation session as a user begins traveling:
providing, by the one or more processors, a first set of navigation directions for navigating to the active destination; and
prior to reaching the active destination, providing, by the one or more processors, at least a second set of navigation directions for navigating from a current location of the user to at least one of the alternative destinations.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely is identifying POIs and providing navigation instructions. This is equivalent to a human sitting in a passenger seat and providing instructions to a driver.
The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person sitting in a passenger seat and providing instructions to a driver. The mere nominal recitation that the transmission is being executed by a computer executing a program does not take the limitation out of the mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for altering a destination during a navigation session, the method comprising:
receiving, at one or more processors, a geographic query;
identifying, by the one or more processors, a set of points of interest (POls) responsive to the geographic query, wherein one of the set of POIs is selected as an active destination for a user;
storing, by the one or more processors, one or more other POIs in the set as alternative destinations; and
during a navigation session as a user begins traveling:
providing, by the one or more processors, a first set of navigation directions for navigating to the active destination; and
prior to reaching the active destination, providing, by the one or more processors, at least a second set of navigation directions for navigating from a current location of the user to at least one of the alternative destinations.
The underlined portion of claim 1 above does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps are performed on a computer executing program code instructions merely automates the mental process. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
The receiving… step recited in the claim is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of an area), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The “Storage…” step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the mental process) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the generating steps.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the process steps are performing using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data, such as the “provid[ing] for …navigational assistance”, is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claims 10 and 19 are likewise rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, In claim 2, the addition limitations of
“wherein the active destination is a first active destination, and further comprising: as the user travels on a first route to the first active destination: determining, by the one or more processors, a duration or distance remaining in the first route to the first active destination; and determining, by the one or more processors, a duration or distance of a second route to the alternative destination, wherein providing the second set of navigation directions for navigating to the alternative destination includes: in response to determining that the duration or distance remaining in the first route exceeds the duration or distance of the second route, setting the alternative destination as a second active destination; and providing, by the one or more processors, the second set of navigation directions for navigating along the second route to the second active destination”….
…..under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using a similar analysis applied to claim 1 above. The method in claim 2, specifically the limitation above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, and abstract idea. It merely consists of determining the duration of a first route to the first destination, then determining the duration of the second destination, and determining the shortest route to provide to navigation directions for navigating along the route. This is equivalate to a person mentally determining the shortest ETA to a destination based on multiple paths.
As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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 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 1,3-4,6,11-12,14, and 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130173159, to Trum et al. (hereinafter Trum), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110106429, to Poppen et al (hereinafter Poppen).
Regarding claim 1, and commensurate claims 9, and 17, Trum discloses, storing, by the one or more processors, one or more other POIs in the set as alternative destinations; (See at least paragraph [0033] [0077] “The navigation device may automatically compute routes to alternative destinations.”).
and during a navigation session as a user begins traveling: providing, by the one or more processors, a first set of navigation directions for navigating to the active destination; (See at least paragraph [0011] “there is provided a navigation device, the navigation device operable to calculate routes to one or more destinations, the device further operable to provide a navigation instruction together with an alternative navigation instruction.”).
and prior to reaching the active destination, providing, by the one or more processors, at least a second set of navigation directions for navigating from a current location of the user to at least one of the alternative destinations. (See at least paragraph [0014] [0022] “a screen displaying a next navigation instruction to a selected destination, and a next navigation instruction to a convenient parking area.”).
Trum does not explicitly disclose, however Poppen discloses, A method for altering a destination during a navigation session, the method comprising: receiving, at one or more processors, a geographic query; (See at least paragraph [0029] “display a list of nearby POIs.”).
identifying, by the one or more processors, a set of points of interest (POls) responsive to the geographic query, (See at least paragraph [0020] “System 100 receives 402 a request from a driver to display a list of nearby POIs. As noted, this request may be limited to specific categories, or may simply be a request for all known POIs along the route. Also as noted, the request includes a distance or time limitation, or alternatively a default limitation is used. Routing engine 104 performs a search, for example using database 106, and identifies 404 a set of nearby POIs.”). wherein one of the set of POIs is selected as an active destination for a user; (See at least paragraph [0020] “a selection of the POI, and then plots 412 a route to the selected POI.”).
Trum as modified by Poppen, are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, route planning systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Trum to incorporate the teachings of Poppen such that the POIs of Poppen will aid in the teachings of Trum to provide alternative destinations to the user for the purposes of avoid traffic.
Regarding claim 3, and commensurate claims 11, and 19, Trum as modified by Poppen disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Trum further disclose, wherein the first set of navigation directions for navigating to the active destination and the second set of navigation directions for navigating to the at least one alternative destination are provided simultaneously, such that the second set of navigation directions are provided as an alternative set of navigation directions. (See at least paragraph [0014] “The device may display on the screen a navigation instruction and an alternative navigation instruction simultaneously.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0011] “the device further operable to provide a navigation instruction together with an alternative navigation instruction.”).
Regarding claim 4, and commensurate claims 12, and 20, Trum as modified by Poppen disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Trum further disclose, further comprising: identifying, by the one or more processors, maneuvers in the first and second set of navigation directions from a same waypoint that result in the user traveling in different directions; (See at least paragraph [FIG.13] [0064] “the navigation system computed the shown route (the thick line running up the centre of the screen) with advice in white on a black background, at the centre of the bottom of the screen: turn left after 950 meters. The alternative is to make a U-turn: this is shown in black text on a white background at the lower left hand side of the screen.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0161] “Device is such that the device screen shows a viable alternative indicated in the map screen by an icon, where the icon shows a direction to be taken from the planned route”).
as the user approaches the waypoint, determining, by the one or more processors, whether the user performs a first maneuver corresponding to the first set of navigation directions or a second maneuver corresponding to the second set of navigation directions. (See at least paragraph [0028] “The navigation device may be such that without a user touching a device screen, the user informs the device that he wants to follow an alternative route, simply by driving that way.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0071] “if the driver follows an alternative advice, the system considers the route associated with that advice to be the new main route. So, without the user touching the screen, the user informs the system that he wants to follow the alternative route,”).
Regarding claim 6, and commensurate claims 14, Trum as modified by Poppen disclose the claimed features of claim 4 and Trum further disclose, further comprising: in response to determining that the user performed the second maneuver: setting, by the one or more processors, the alternative destination as the active destination; and no longer providing, the one or more processors, the first set of navigation directions for a remaining portion of the first route. (See at least paragraph [0027] “The navigation device may be such that if a driver follows an alternative advice which is part of an alternative route, rather than continuing with the main route, the device considers the alternative route associated with that alternative advice to be the new main route.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0071] “An additional idea is a navigation system with the following property: if the driver follows an alternative advice, the system considers the route associated with that advice to be the new main route. So, without the user touching the screen, the user informs the system that he wants to follow the alternative route, simply by driving that way. ”).
Regarding claim 8, and commensurate claims 15, Trum as modified by Poppen disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Trum further disclose, wherein the second set of navigation directions are provided without additional input from the user. (See at least paragraph [0012] “The navigation device may be operable to provide a navigation instruction and an alternative navigation instruction without user intervention.”).
Claims 2,5,7,10,13,15, and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130173159, to Trum et al. (hereinafter Trum), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110106429, to Poppen et al (hereinafter Poppen), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9360335, to Powelson et al (hereinafter Powelson).
Regarding claim 5, and commensurate claims 13, Trum as modified by Poppen disclose the claimed features of claim 4 and Trum fails to explicitly discloses, however Powelson disclose, further comprising: in response to determining that the user performed the first maneuver: filtering, by the one or more processors, the alternative destination from the alternative destinations; and no longer providing, the one or more processors, the second set of navigation directions for a remaining portion of the second route. (See [Column 9, Lines 63-65 and Column 10, lines 1-3] “the method 400 generates an interactive prompt to enable a user to select the new route if desired. Subsequently, at block 418, if the new route is selected, then the method 400 moves to block 420, where the method 400 shows the new route to the destination. On the other hand, if the new route is not selected, then the method 400 proceeds to the block 406 to continue to show the original route to the destination.”).
Trum as modified by Powelson, are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, route planning systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Trum as modified by Poppen to incorporate the teachings of Powelson such that the removing of the alternative route is cleared in order to avoid confusion for the driver.
Regarding claim 7, and commensurate claims 15, Trum as modified by Poppen disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Trum fails to explicitly discloses, however Powelson disclose, wherein the first set of navigation directions for navigating to the active destination and the second set of navigation directions for navigating to the at least one alternative destination are provided one at a time, such that the second set of navigation directions are provided in response to setting the at least one alternative destination as the active destination. (See [Column 9, Lines 63-65 and Column 10, lines 1-3] “if the new route is selected, then the method 400 moves to block 420, where the method 400 shows the new route to the destination. On the other hand, if the new route is not selected, then the method 400 proceeds to the block 406 to continue to show the original route to the destination.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Trum as modified by Poppen to incorporate the teachings of Powelson for the same motivation reasons in claim 7.
Regarding claim 2, and commensurate claims 10, and 18, Trum as modified by Poppen disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Trum further disclose, wherein the active destination is a first active destination, and further comprising: as the user travels on a first route to the first active destination: determining, by the one or more processors, a duration or distance remaining in the first route to the first active destination; (See at least paragraph [0066] “By showing the original advice as well, augmented with the difference in distance and travel time, the user is reassured that the system has made the right choice for him.”). (See at least paragraph [0162] “Device is such that the device screen shows a viable alternative indicated in the map screen by an icon, where icon shows the journey time required, or the difference in the journey time required, if the viable alternative is selected in preference to the planned route. .”).
Trum fails to explicitly discloses, however Powelson disclose, and determining, by the one or more processors, a duration or distance of a second route to the alternative destination, wherein providing the second set of navigation directions for navigating to the alternative destination includes: in response to determining that the duration or distance remaining in the first route exceeds the duration or distance of the second route, setting the alternative destination as a second active destination; and providing, by the one or more processors, the second set of navigation directions for navigating along the second route to the second active destination. (See [Column 9, and Lines 51-55] “At the block 412, the method 400 measures the divergence between the new route and the original route, and weighs the degree of divergence against an amount of time that can be saved or lost. The result is determined as a projected amount of time that can be saved by using the new route.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Trum as modified
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesam Almadhrhi whose telephone number is (571) 270-3844. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WESAM NMN ALMADHRHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666