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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/16/26 has been entered. Currently claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 20-25 are pending. The examiner will address applicant’s remarks at the end of this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 3, 5-7, 9, 20-25 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For claims 1, 20, the claim recites “without modifying the graphical representation to indicate in any way that the legal restriction changed the custom navigational route”. This appears to be new matter that is not supported by the specification as originally filed. For the claimed custom drive route that is generated, the specification does not disclose that the custom route is changed after it has been generated, where the graphical representation is not modified to indicate that the custom route has been changed. While the specification does disclose that an indication may be provided that the custom drive route is not the optimal route to be taken to a given destination (see paragraph 014), the specification does not teach that the custom drive route is itself changed, where an indication of the custom route being changed is not being indicated on the second communication device via the graphical representation. Absent disclosure in the specification to the custom drive route being changed, the indication that the custom drive route is not the optimal route in the specification does not provide support for the claim language that recites the custom drive route as being changed and that the graphical representation is not modified to indicate the change. For this reason the claim is found to be reciting new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 20-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claims 1, 20, the claim recites that the custom navigational drive route is provided without modifying the graphical representation to indicate in any way that the legal restriction changed the custom navigational route. In the context of the claim as a whole this language does not make sense and is confusing. As claimed, the custom navigational drive route is the only route being determined and that is being provided to the second communication device. The claim does not recite that the custom drive route was changed in any manner, so the examiner questions why the claim recites that the graphical representation is presented without modification to indicate in any way that the legal restriction changed the custom drive route? There is only one custom drive route and the claim does not recite changing the route in any manner. Does the claim require that the generated custom drive route be changed or is the custom drive route the only route that is being presented to a user/driver? The claim lanague makes no sense when the custom drive route (that is the only route of the claim) has not been changed in any manner in the claim. The claim simply recites that a custom drive route is determined and provided via a graphical representation. It is not clear what the noted claim language is trying to claim because the claim does not recite a change in the custom route, and because the negative limitation of what is not occurring with the graphical representation does not seem to further limit the actual display of the customer drive route that is generated and claimed as being presented in the graphical representation. This confusion in the claim scope renders the claim indefinite.
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, 3, 5-7, 9, 20-25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a system, a non-transitory machine readable medium, and a method; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of determining a route to be driven for an individual that is subject to a legal restriction, so that they don to violate that legal restriction, such as a restraining order against another person or company, etc..
Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claim 20, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
receiving a drive request, the drive request identifying a source location and a destination location;
determining that the requesting individual is currently subject to a legal restriction, wherein the legal restriction restricts mobility of the individual;
generating a custom navigational drive route for the drive request for driving a vehicle between the source location and the destination location that satisfies the legal restriction; and
providing the custom drive route to a driver associated with the driving service,
receiving the custom navigational drive route and outputting a graphical presentation presenting the custom navigational drive route without modifying the graphical representation to indicate in any way that the legal restriction changed the customer navigational drive route;
monitoring a location of the vehicle for any deviation of the vehicle from the custom navigational drive route and,
responsive to detecting via monitoring of the location of the vehicle, a deviation of the vehicle from the custom navigational drive route, only then modifying the graphical representation presenting the custom navigational drive route to indicate that the custom navigational drive route being provided is a mandatory route
The above limitations are reciting a method of complying with a legal obligation in the form of a travel restriction, such as when a restraining order placed upon a person that limits places they can be at, such as drug areas, bars, etc.. This is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities in the form of satisfying a legal obligation. If a person is subject to a movement restriction due to a court order, taking proactive steps to avoid a prohibited movement according to the legal restriction is the act of comply with the legal restriction. This is the act of satisfying a legal obligation and places the claimed elements noted above into the category of being a certain method of organizing human activities.
For claims 1, 20, the additional elements of the claim are the recitation to a system that includes at least one processor and memory that stores instructions to perform the steps that are considered to define the abstract idea, use of a first and second communication device (both generically recited), an electronic display of the communication device, and the use of the word “electronic” to describe the drive request, the custom navigational drive route, the notifications, and the monitoring (electronically monitoring).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device(s) with a processor and memory and generically recited first and second communication devices (with displays), that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited processor and memory, and using a generically recited first and second communication devices to perform steps that define the abstract idea. The same is noted for the claimed electronic display that is on the second communication device that is being used to display a notification to a user. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer connected via a network such as the Internet (the web) to a first and second communication device such as a mobile phone, all being generically recited. The claimed first and second communication devices claimed can be a mobile phone or a laptop computer, both of which inherently have an electronic display. For this reason the recitation to the communication devices and the electronic display, and calling the data of the claim “electronic”, are elements that serve to link the execution of the abstract idea to generic computer implementation. The server and the communication devices in the claim are being used as a tool to execute the recited steps, which does not amount to integration into a practical application. The processor(s), first and second communication devices, and the electronic display are all generically recited and do not amount to more than a general link to a particular technological environment that is the use of computers to perform the abstract idea. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. The claims recite the use of a computing device(s) with a processor and memory and the generically recited first and second communication devices, as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited processor and memory, and using a generically recited first and second communication devices to perform steps that define the abstract idea. The same is noted for the claimed electronic display that is on the second communication device that is being used to display a notification to a user. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer connected via a network such as the Internet (the web) to a first and second communication device such as a mobile phone, all being generically recited. The claimed first and second communication devices claimed can be a mobile phone or a laptop computer, both of which inherently have an electronic display. For this reason the recitation to the communication devices and the electronic display, and calling the data of the claim “electronic”, are elements that serve to link the execution of the abstract idea to generic computer implementation. The processor(s), first and second communication devices, and the electronic display are all generically recited and do not amount to more than a general link to a particular technological environment that is the use of computers to perform the abstract idea.
For claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 21, 23, the applicant is reciting a further embellishment of the same abstract idea that was found for claim 1. Claiming that the legal restriction pertains to court orders to stay away….., that the restriction relates to known drug dealers, liquor stores, schools…., generating an optimal route and providing the optimal route and the custom route with an indication that the custom route is generated to avoid a parolee velation, and reciting that the legal restriction comprises avoiding routes that come within a predetermined distance to any school are all elements that serve to further define the abstract idea of the claims. The type of legal restriction at hand and providing the routes to the user are further recitations to the process of satisfying a legal obligation and are considered to be part of the abstract idea. The claimed use of the first communication device has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1 to which applicant is referred, and does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 6, 22, the abstract idea is being further defined by:
registering a third communication device of a person protected by a restraining order,
wherein identifying that the individual is currently subject to the legal restriction comprises the receiving an indication of a current location of the person protected by the restraining order at a time of the driving request,
wherein the generating the custom drive route comprises generating the custom driving route by avoiding coming within a predetermined distance of the indicated current location of the person protected
A person can perform the above steps with no technology at all. The claimed elements are part of the abstract idea. Person can register a third communication device as claimed by signing up another person and their device. A person can receive an indication of a current location as claimed and can generate the route so that it will avoid the indicated current location of the person protected. The only additional element of the claim is the reference to “electronically” receiving an indication of the current location for a person. This has been treated as an instruction for one to use a computer to electronically execute the abstract idea, as was addressed for claims 1, 20. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 24, 25, the abstract idea is being further defined by the claim elements of:
receiving a second drive request, the second drive request identifying a second source location and a second destination location;
determining that the requesting individual is currently subject to the legal restriction,
wherein the legal restriction restricts mobility of the individual;
while attempting to generate a second custom navigational drive route for the drive request for driving the vehicle between the second source location and the second destination location that satisfies the legal restriction, determining that no route is possible for the vehicle between the second source location and the second destination location that satisfies the legal restriction, and
responsively presenting a false indication that no driver is currently available to drive the route.
The above elements are claiming the receipt of another drive request and determining that no route can be taken that satisfies the legal requirement and sending out a notification that no driver is available (the content of the notification is non-functional descriptive material that is akin to claiming printed matter as the content of the notification is not executable to do anything and only has meaning to a human being). The fact that the notification presents a false indication that no driver is available is claiming an aspect of the abstract idea and is reciting the content of a message. The use of the communication device and an electronic display to output the graphical representation is taken as an additional element that is claiming the use of the communication device to display data. This is taken as an instruction for one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited communication device such as a smartphone to display data to a user. Calling the request and the notification of the claim “electronic”, is generally linking the execution of the abstract idea to generic computer implementation as was stated for claims 1,20. This does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons set forth for claims 1, 20. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 20-25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 20, 21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magzimof et al. (20190385460) in view of Branch et al. (5760742).
For claims 1, 5, 20, Magzimof discloses a computerized system and method that identifies an occupant in a vehicle, so that a judicial restriction on the movement of the occupant and the vehicle can be enforced. In general see paragraph 004 where this is disclosed. The system includes a server 120, a vehicle 102, network 145, and terminals 110 (the claimed 1st, 2nd communication devices). Also see figure 1 where the overall system is disclosed. This satisfies the claimed communication system that comprises a system that includes at least one processor, memory that stores instructions, and a non-transitory machine readable medium (memory). The claimed receiving of a drive request and determining that the requesting individual is currently subject to a legal restriction is disclosed in paragraphs 013, 023, 034, and 047. Magzimof teaches for an occupant of a vehicle, such as a passenger, the system will use the occupant identification of to look up any restrictions on the movement of the occupant, such as those set forth in a judicial restriction, see paragraphs 023, 034, 047.
Magzimof teaches that the location of the vehicle is determined in paragraph 013, and discloses that a destination (paragraph 047) is used to determine a route to be taken to the destination that would not allow the occupant to violate a judicial restriction on their movement. Also see paragraph 004 where it is disclosed that route guidance is being given to a driver so that a violation will not occur. This requires destination information to be received that specifies where the occupant want to travel to so that a route can be generated. This satisfies the drive request. Magzimof teaches that the system can present a route to the driver that specifies a route that is to be taken, see paragraph 033. Magzimof teaches that the restriction may be a restriction that specifies particular routes to be taken, such that navigation may be limited to a set of predetermined routes. The claimed generating of a custom route for the drive request that satisfies the legal restriction and the providing of the route to the driver is disclosed in paragraphs 009, 011, 015, 038. Navigation guidance in the form of routes to be taken are being provided to the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle ( could be the occupant) via a display of the vehicle (the 2nd communication device). This also satisfies the recitation to the route being an optimal route as is recited in claim 7.
With respect to the language reciting that the custom drive route is provided to the driver without modifying the graphical representation to indicate in any way that the legal restriction changed the customer navigational drive route; this is satisfied by Magzimof. Magzimof does not teach that the driver is given any indication that the custom route has been or is being changed. The claim recites that the custom route is presented at the electronic display of the second communication device, which is taught by Magzimof. No modification is taught by Magzimof that indicates the custom route (the only route) has been changed, thereby satisfying what is claimed. The negative limitation reciting what does not occur for the electronic display does not define anything further to the actual display of the custom route via the graphical representation that is not found in Magzimof.
With respect to the recitation of “the first communication device registered with a driving service”, this is a recitation directed to non-functional descriptive material that does not define anything to the claimed invention. The fact that the communication device is registered with a service does not impart any step or structure to anything that is claimed. There is no registration of any device in the claim scope and the registration is something that occurred in the past per the claim language itself, and for that reason is not a part of the claim scope, including for the method. The examiner makes this comment to clarify how the claim lanague has been interpreted.
For claims 1, 20, not disclosed by Magzimof s that upon a deviation of the vehicle location from the custom route, the graphical representation that shows the custom route is modified such that it presents an indication that the custom route being provided is a mandatory route.
The examiner notes that Magzimof teaches that the routes to be taken can be specified and that they may be limited to a predetermined set of routes, see paragraphs 020, 033. Magzimof teaches that the system provides the user with a mandatory or required route that is to be taken by providing navigational guidance to the user, see paragraphs 004, 013, 015, 035 as examples. Magzimof teaches that the location of the vehicle is monitored to determine if the vehicle and the occupant are violating a restriction, see paragraph 037 that discloses the triggering of an alert upon determining that the policy restriction is being violated. Paragraph 038 teaches providing navigation instructions to a vehicle that includes instructions on routes or areas to take or to not go into. Magzimof is found to be teaching the act of monitoring the location of the vehicle for deviations from a specified route or area, etc..
Branch discloses a system and method of tracking a vehicle that uses positional information of the vehicle to monitor vehicle location and to monitor the travel routes being taken. Branch discloses that the system can notify the driver of a vehicle when they have deviated from a required route that is supposed to be taken. Paragraph 012 discloses that vehicle position is determined by using GPS signals and paragraph 15 discloses that when a vehicle is found to be deviating from a specified route, a message can be sent to a vehicle informing the user/driver that they have deviated from the specified route.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Magzimof with the ability to modify the electronic display to inform a user that they have deviated from a mandatory route, such as for the situation where there is only one allowed route that is to be taken to a particular destination due to area restrictions placed upon the occupant of a vehicle. Magzimof monitors the location of the vehicle and its adherence to traveling on a specified and permitted route and teaches that navigational instructions can be sent to the vehicle and the driver at various times to provide assistance in adhering to the restrictions placed upon the occupant. In view of the teaching of Branch, it would have been obvious to provide the vehicle driver of Magzimof with a notification that they have deviated from a mandatory route, that is the disclosed one of the predetermined allowed routes of Magzimof that the occupant can take to a destination. Providing a notification via the electronic display as claimed would yield the predictable result of allowing the driver and the occupant (can be the same) of Magzimof to be notified that they have deviated from a required route that they must take to a destination, such as when there is only one allowed route to a given destination due to lack of roads, etc., which is something that is well within the scope of Magzimof and is dependent on the destination, the area, the existence of numerous roads or lack of roads to a given destination, and the restriction itself.
Additionally, while the prior art to Branch teaches the content of the notification as claimed, the examiner notes that for the record that the content of the notification and what it conveys to a person receiving the notification is a recitation to non-functional descriptive material that is akin to claiming printed matter of a textual message. This type of limitation does not receive weight with respect to what the notification says to a person. However, this is a moot point due to Branch disclosing the claimed content of the notification. The examiner makes this comment to clarify for the record that content of a notification is not functional in nature and is the same as claiming printed matter.
For claims 3, 21, Magzimof teaches that the custom route to be taken will avoid restricted areas based on the identity of the passenger. Magzimof teaches a judicial decision as being the basis for the travel restriction. This is considered to satisfy the claimed court order. A judicial decision is a court order. The example in paragraph 023 to a restraining order satisfies the claimed court order to stay a certain distance away from one or more entities, which are the persons that the restraining order is protecting.
Magzimof teaches what is claimed.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magzimof et al. (20190385460) Magzimof et al. (20190385460) in view of Branch et al. (5760742) and further in view of examiner official notice.
For claim 9, not disclosed is that the restriction does not allow the individual a predetermined distance from a school. The examiner takes official notice to the fact that child sexual predators are known the legal field and upon conviction of a sex crime with a child, it is known in the judicial system to not allow the convicted person near schools. If one is convicted of a sex crime involving a child, it is known in the art that they cannot be near children at schools (they must maintain a certain distance form the schools). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Magzimof with judicial restrictions that restrict how close to a school the individual can be, so that the benefits of the system of Magzimof can be obtained for passengers/individuals that are not allowed to be near schools due to being convicted of a child sex crime.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. On page 7 of the reply the applicant argues that the claims are not simply about complying with a legal restriction but are reciting a specific technical solution for generating dynamic custom navigation routes that simply a user interface by not modifying the interface to indicate applied forbidden areas until the driver has deviated from a mandatory route. This is not persuasive. The claims involve steps that are taken to satisfy a legal obligation and in that sense are found to be reciting (set forth or describe) a judicial exception. As to a specific technical solution that is using an interface to display a custom navigation route without modification, this is not persuasive. To start with, the claim only requires that the customer route be provided via the electronic display. The fact that the claim recites no modification is occurring that indicates that the route is changed does not serve to improve interface technology or the electronic display of the claims. The claim is simply reciting that the display of the custom route is done by not also modifying the graphical representation to indicate that the route has changed, which is simply claiming that the custom route is displayed via the electronic display. This is just the using a computing device such as a smartphone as a tool to provide for execution of the abstract idea by performing data display. The argument that technology is being improved by not modifying the graphical representation to indicate that the customer route has changed (a change relative to what is not clear) is not persuasive. One could also argue that by not presenting a user with 200,000 search results on a screen at one time, technology is improved by not displaying as much as could be displayed. The result of the claim is the use of a communication device to display a custom drive route to a user, which does not result in the electronic display or any of the technology of the claim being improved. Claiming what is not happening in the claim does not provide for an improvement to technology that would render the claims eligible. The argument is not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 the applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the claimed elements and that the narrowness of the claimed invention means that the claims do not seek to tie up and prevent others from complying with legal restrictions for travel routes. This is not persuasive because the novelty or non-obviousness of a judicial exception, and the narrowness of a judicial exception does not mean that a claim is eligible. From SAP AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. INVESTPIC, LLC:
“We affirm. We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations (in the plot of a probability distribution function). No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the nonabstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.”
With respect to narrowness of a claimed judicial exception, that also does not mean that a claim is eligible. In buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court stated that "abstract ideas, no matter how groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, are outside what the statute means by "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter", and reference is made to Myriad by the court for this position. Also stated in buySAFE is "In defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303. The Court in Mayo rejected the contention that the very narrow scope of the natural law at issue was a reason to find patent eligibility, explaining the point with reference to both natural laws and one kind of abstract idea, namely, mathematical concepts.
Therefore, arguing that the prior art does not disclose the claimed invention and that the claims are narrow does not equate to the claims being eligible. The argument is not found to be persuasive.
On page 8 of the reply the applicant alleges that the claims are not well understood, routine or conventional and argues that the claims provide for integration into a practical application. The examiner has not taken the position that anything is well understood, routine, or conventional at step 2B because nothing has been found to be an insignificant extra solution activity at the 2nd prong so this argument does not appear to be relevant to the claims or the rejection at hand. Examiners do not have to prove that a claimed invention was well understood, routine, and conventional in a given field to find that the claims are not eligible if that is what the applicant is trying to argue. Merely alleging that the claims are not well understood, routine, and conventional is a general allegation with no actual traversal to consider. Also, examiners are prohibited from considering the well understood nature of a given limitation(s) when trying to determine if the claims are integrated into a practical application at the 2nd prong of the analysis, so the argument is not suited for a 2nd prong traversal. The rejection of record does not find anything to be an insignificant extra solution activity at the 2nd prong so there is nothing to reassess at step 2B with respect to the issue of being well understood, routine, and conventional (the Berkheimer memo). The argument is not persuasive.
On page 8 the applicant argues that by not modifying the electronic display (which is arguing that the novelty lies in not doing something as opposed to doing something in a positive sense), it allows for simpler, less crowded, and less confusing interfaces that are easier and quicker to execute. This argument is all relative to a situation that is not claimed (a crowded, confusing display) and is an argument that does not have any real meaning in the claim scope. The argument does not have any context in the claim as far as nothing is claimed that results in a less crowded or more efficient or less confusing interface. The claim simply recites that a custom drive route is provided via an electronic display, with no modification. That alone is not improving the display in any manner, it is just claiming that a custom route is being displayed. Arguing that the mere display of a drive route is making the display more efficient or less confusing is not persuasive, especially when one considers that the claim uses comprising that allows for additional elements to be present that are not claimed, such as overlays and other information being provided to the user. The argument that the claims are eligible because they are not modifying the electronic display (the graphical representation) to provide an indication that the route is changed (that is not in the claim scope) is not persuasive.
On page 9 of the reply the applicant argues that the claims ensure vehicular adherence to a custom route in a way in which the graphical representation is not simply a reminder of the underlying legal restriction, but is GPS triggered (GPS is not claimed) and provides context specific guidance to the driver in an easy to understand and less confusing manner. This is not persuasive. The claim does nothing more than to recite that upon deviation of the vehicle location from the custom route, the driver is informed that the route is mandatory. Informing the driver that the route is mandatory is no different than simply reminding the driver that they have to take the custom route. In that sense the argument that the claims are not just a reminder to take the custom route is not persuasive as informing a driver that a route is mandatory is just a message (printed matter, non-functional descriptive material). Arguing that the invention does not bother the driver with unnecessary modifications to the graphical representation until the GPS tracking indicates a deviation of vehicle location is comparing the claimed invention to unclaimed situations that are hypothetical in nature, and that is not supported by the claim using the transitionary phrase of “comprising” that is open ended language and allows for additional elements to be present other than just the customer route, such as overlays and other information. Claims are defined by what is positively recited and what is positively occurring in a method. Claims are not defined by comparing them to unclaimed situations that have no context in the claims and by claiming what the invention does not do. Again, arguing that the invention is eligible because the display (graphical representation) is not being modified does not change the fact that the claims do nothing more than to recite the use of the electronic display for display of the customer drive route. What the display provides for as compared to an unclaimed and hypothetical other display does not add anything to the claimed invention beyond the mere display of the custom drive route via the display and/or a modification that informs the driver that the route is mandatory (which is the same as a reminder). The argument is not persuasive.
On page 9 the applicant argues that the claims provide for a tangible and useful solution for drivers, ride sharing services, etc.. The applicant argues that the invention allows for a less confusing interface, as compared to what applicant calls more confusing, crowded interfaces. This is not persuasive. All that is claimed is the display of a custom route with no modification. The fact that one could modify a display to make it more confusing and more crowded does not entitle the applicant to argue that by not modifying the display they are improving technology. What matters are the functions and steps that are recited, not comparing the claimed invention to things that are not claimed and that are hypothetical in nature, and in view of the claims using the transitionary phrase of comprising that allows for additional elements to be present.
On page 9-10 the applicant argues claims 24 and 25. The applicant argues that the claims address how to inform an individual that there is no available route that is transparent and protects privacy in a new and non-obvious technical way. This is not persuasive. The output of an indication that falsely states that no driver is available is part of the abstract idea, and even if it improves how a user is informed of information, any innovation lies in the abstract idea itself and not in an improvement to an interface or technology. The argument is not persuasive and the 101 rejection is being maintained.
The traversal of the prior art rejection is not persuasive. With respect to the arguments that are based on the newly amended claim language, the arguments are moot based on the new grounds of rejection that is addressing the claims and the newly amended language. The applicant argues that Magzimof displays restricted areas to the driver that affect the route. While this may be true, this does not have anything to do with the claimed changing of the custom route and not providing a modification to the graphical representation as claimed. The language reciting that the custom drive route is provided to the driver without modifying the graphical representation to indicate in any way that the legal restriction changed the customer navigational drive route; this is satisfied by Magzimof. Magzimof does not teach that the driver is given any indication that the custom route is changed and does not teach that the route is changed. The claim recites that the custom route is presented at the electronic display of the second communication device, which is taught by Magzimof. No modification of the display (graphical representation) is taught by Magzimof that indicates the custom route (the only route) has been changed. The negative limitation reciting what does not occur for the electronic display does not define anything further to the actual display of the custom route that would not be found in Magzimof. Even if Magzimof provides overlays for the route as argued, that is not an indication that the route has been changed because the route is still the route, it is not changed. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the proposed modification with Branch is not proper. The applicant argues that there is no apparent reason to modify Magzimof to inform the driver of a route because the applicant argues that there is no driver in Magzimof. This is not persuasive. Magzimof teaches that the operation of the vehicles can be based on inputs from a driver, see paragraph 011. The vehicle in Magzimof is disclosed as including a non-autonomous vehicle that is controlled by a driver. The argument that there is no driver in Magzimof is not persuasive. There is a driver in Magzimof and this lends to the obviousness of providing the driver with an indication that they have deviated from a mandatory route, based on the teachings of Branch. When the vehicle in Magzimof is not autonomous and is being driven by a driver, it would have been obvious to provide an indication that the vehicle is deviating from a mandatory route.
The applicant argues that the human dispatcher of Branch is not equivalent to the claimed computing device that generates the custom route. This is not persuasive because Magzimof teaches the computing device as being used to generate the route and Magzimof is the primary reference. The teaching of monitoring the location of the vehicle for a deviation comes from the teachings of Branch. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the teaching of having a human dispatcher in Branch manually notifying the vehicle of a deviation from a route is not the same as using the graphical representation for indicating that the route is mandatory. This is not persuasive. Magzimof teaches the use of a navigation system to provide the user with information about the route they are taking. That is the mechanism by which the user is made aware of the route, and it would have been obvious to use the navigation system (interface with a graphical representation of the route) to inform the user of the deviation. Branch was relied upon for the general teaching of monitoring a vehicle location and informing the driver of a deviation from a required route. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues that providing a driver to the vehicle of Magzimof destroys the teachings of Magzimof. This is not persuasive because Magzimof teaches the use of a driver and does not teach away from having a driver as has already been addressed. The basis for the argument is not accurate as Magzimof does teach having a driver. It is not clear why the applicant argues otherwise. The applicant argues that the proposed combination would inform a driver that restrictions where applied to the route and would result in a second notification of a vehicle location deviation, and argues that this still does not teach what is claimed. The argument is not persuasive. The claims recite the display of a custom route with no modification unless the location of the vehicle is found to be deviating from the route, at which point the graphical representation is modified. This is what the combined prior art provides for contrary to what has been argued. The allegation that the combination does not teach all of the claimed elements is not persuasive.
On page 13 of the reply the applicant notes that claims 6, 7, 22-25 have not been rejected on prior art. While the claims may define over the cited prior art of record, the examiner notes that claims cannot be indicated as allowable until all grounds of rejection have been overcome. However, the applicant is correct in that claims 6, 7, 22-25 define over the cited prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights