DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 23, 2026 has been entered.
In response to Applicant’s claims filed on January 23, 2026 claims 1-20 and 22-24 are now pending for examination in the application.
Response to Arguments
This office action is in response to amendment filed 01/23/2026. In this action 1-20, 22-24 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jakobson et al. (US Pub. No. 20110153186) and Hannson et al. (US Pub. No. 20100114874) in further view of Smith et al. (US Pub. No. 20100118025). The Hannson et al. reference has been added to address the amendment of assigning, by the one or more processors, a score for the plurality of search results, wherein the score is based on how often users select the search result in response to entering the query.
The 112 rejection under 35 USC 112 set forth in the 01/23/2026 office action is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 6, applicant argues “identifying, by one or more processors, at least one of the plurality of the search results based on a relationship to the geographic context and the respective score and displaying the at least one of the plurality of search results as visual indicators at respective geographic locations on the digital map" amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. These features represent a concrete technological improvement to the operation of a digital mapping application.”
Examiner’s Reply:
Identifying search results using context is not a technological improvement. The claims merely use a geographical context when displaying search results using points of interest. The assigning of scores and identification of geographic data in documents is a computer-implemented abstract mental process.
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 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1-20 and 22-24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, on Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101 accordance with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance" (published on 1/7/2019 in Fed, Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 at pgs. 50-57, hereinafter referred to as the "2019 PEG").
Step 1. in accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted the claim method (claims 1-10 and 22-24), a medium (claims 11-20) are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG, it is noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea falling within the Mental Processes enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Examiner is of the position that independent claims 1 and 11 are directed towards the Mental Process Grouping of Abstract Ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1 and 11 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes:
assigning, by the one or more processors, a score for each of the plurality of search results, wherein the score is based on how often users select the search result in response to entering the query (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determine a weighted criteria);
identifying, by one or more processors, at least one of the plurality of the search results based on a relationship to the geographic context and the respective weighted criteria (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to identify search results).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 1 and 11:
Processors;
receiving, from a server system and in response to a query related to a geographic area including a geographic context, a plurality of search results (recites a generic computer function of mere data gathering);
providing a digital map of the geographic area via a user interface (recites a generic computer function of presenting a digital map);
displaying the at least one of the plurality of search results as visual indicators at respective geographic locations on the digital map (recites a generic computer function of displaying indicators on a digital map).
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Therefore, independent claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim(s) 2 and 12:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
providing a user interface element which, when selected by a user, causes removal from the digital map a portion of the plurality of search results that is not relevant to the geographic context (recites a generic computer function of displaying results on a digital map);
wherein the plurality of search results corresponds to one of a plurality of layers of the digital map the user interface element is associated with providing focus to the one of the plurality of layers (recites a generic computer function of displaying results on a digital map).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 3 and 13:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
the plurality of search results correspond to an ambiguous query that does not include the geographic context (recites a generic computer function of displaying results on a digital map);
the geographic context corresponds to an unambiguous query (recites a generic computer function of displaying results on a digital map);
the user interface element applies the geographic context to the ambiguous query (recites a generic computer function of displaying results on a digital map).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 4 and 14:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the geographic context corresponds to a response to another geographic query (recites a generic computer function of displaying results on a digital map).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 5 and 15:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the geographic context corresponds to a navigation route between a starting position and an ending position (recites a generic computer function of displaying results on a digital map).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 6 and 16:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the user interface element corresponds to the navigation route (recites a generic computer function of displaying results on a digital map).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 7 and 17:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
each of the plurality of search results corresponds to a respective location within the geographic area, the portion of the plurality of search results that is not relevant to the geographic context corresponds to locations beyond a certain distance of the navigation route (recites a generic computer function of displaying results on a digital map).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 8 and 18:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the geographic context corresponds to user-defined content. (recites a generic computer function of displaying results on a digital map).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 9 and 19:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
receiving a plurality of selections of respective places favorited by a user, to define the user-defined content (recites a generic computer function of mere data gathering).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 10 and 20:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
receiving user-defined shapes to define the user-defined content (recites a generic computer function of mere data gathering).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 22:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein determining at least of the plurality of search results to display, prioritizing at least one of the search results based on the respective score (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determine a weighted criteria).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 23:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
visually emphasizing the search results based on their score (recites a generic computer function of displaying results on a digital map).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 24:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
filtering the plurality of search results
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
(recites a generic computer function of displaying results on a digital map).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-20, 22-24 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jakobson et al. (US Pub. No. 20110153186) and Hannson et al. (US Pub. No. 20100114874) in further view of Smith et al. (US Pub. No. 20100118025).
With respect to claim 1, Jakobson et al. teaches a method for displaying geographic search results, the method comprising:
receiving, from a server system and in response to a query related to a geographic area including a geographic context, a plurality of search results (combining search results (i.e. query resulting in one or more POIs), See Paragraph 6);
providing a digital map of the geographic area via a user interface (The POIs retrieved by the mapping application (e.g. based on the search query, dimensions of the map and any other logic used by the mapping application) are then further filtered to produce a subset of POIs which are within the geographic confines of the user's selected region, See Paragraph 6). Jakobson et al. does not disclose identifying, by one or more processors, at least one of the plurality of the search results based on a relationship to the geographic context and the respective weighted criteria. Jakobson et al. does not disclose assigning, by the one or more processors, a score for the plurality of search results, wherein the score is based on how often users select the search result in response to entering the query.
However, Hannson et al. teaches assigning, by the one or more processors, a score for the plurality of search results, wherein the score is based on how often users select the search result in response to entering the query (Paragraph 156 discloses layers can be recommended based on a user usage and/or viewing patterns. Users can rate and review layers through an interactive process. The top layer associated with each search can be based upon a layer popularity trend and can be related to user ratings and user reviews. If a particular layer is not relative to the current map displayed, the layer can be hidden);
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jakobson et al. with Smith et al. to include assigning, by the one or more processors, a score for the plurality of search results, wherein the score is based on how often users select the search result in response to entering the query. See Hannson et al. Paragraph(s)5-10.
Jakobson et al. as modified by Hannson et al. does not disclose identifying, by one or more processors, at least one of the plurality of the search results based on a relationship to the geographic context and the respective weighted criteria.
However, Smith et al. discloses identifying, by one or more processors, at least one of the plurality of the search results based on a relationship to the geographic context and the respective weighted criteria (Paragraph 59 discloses map information can include personalized location-based (distance, relevance, etc.) results, including directions and navigation results. By way of example and not limitation the map information can include restaurants in a neighborhood);
displaying the at least one of the plurality of search results as visual indicators at respective geographic locations on the digital map (Paragraph 154 discloses display 1600 that shows mapping information overlaid with user controls. The different controls 1602, 1604, and 1606 are placed on different layers and there is an intelligence associated with each control 1602, 1604, and 1606. A layer captures a local augmentation of available information and the display provides a complex, multi-layer world made of raster, vector, cultural objects, moving elements, people, avatars, bots and other elements. Layers are basically a set of geo-coded entities (e.g., points, lines, polygons) and their extent and attributes (e.g., name, photo, URLs, . . . )).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jakobson et al. and Hannson et al. with Smith et al. to include identifying, by one or more processors, at least one of the plurality of the search results based on a relationship to the geographic context and the respective weighted criteria. This would have facilitated layering of search results in order to improve displayed relevancy. See Smith et al. Paragraph(s) 2-16.
The Jakobson et al. reference as modified by Hannson et al. and Smith et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 2, Jakobson et al. discloses providing a user interface element which, when selected by a user, causes removal from the digital map a portion of the plurality of search results that is not relevant to the geographic context (the mapping application may automatically update the list of search results (e.g. by re-running the search query 664 against the mapping server or an internal data store, using the new coordinates of the previously-selected and newly-selected regions) and display an updated list 666b of POIs, See Paragraph 81); and
wherein the plurality of search results corresponds to one of a plurality of layers of the digital map the user interface element is associated with providing focus to the one of the plurality of layers (the mapping application may automatically update the list of search results (e.g. by re-running the search query 664 against the mapping server or an internal data store, using the new coordinates of the previously-selected and newly-selected regions) and display an updated list 666b of POIs, See Paragraph 81). Smith et al. teaches providing a user interface element which, when selected by a user, causes removal from the digital map a portion of the plurality of search results that is not relevant to the geographic context (Paragraph 156 discloses layers can be recommended based on a user usage and/or viewing patterns. Users can rate and review layers through an interactive process. The top layer associated with each search can be based upon a layer popularity trend and can be related to user ratings and user reviews. If a particular layer is not relative to the current map displayed, the layer can be hidden). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the Jakobson et al. reference and the Smith et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 2.
The Jakobson et al. reference as modified by Hannson et al. and Smith et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 3, Jakobson et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
the plurality of search results correspond to an ambiguous query that does not include the geographic context (these POIs are the result of a user query. For example, a user may have typed a query such as "coffee in San Francisco", in response to which a mapping server which delivered map tiles comprising the digital map 104, may have identified POIs "A"-"F", representing physical POIs that are the result of the search, and may display the POIs as icons "A" 106--"F" on the digital map 104, See Paragraph 17);
the geographic context corresponds to an unambiguous query (POIs that are within the secondary region may be determined and at step 568, the determined POIs may be removed from the display. As per the example above, if the area of the map previously containing POIs (i.e. the primary region) is the city of San Francisco and the secondary region (i.e. area marked by user as portion of the primary region to be deleted) is Fisherman's Wharf, then at step 568 all POIs representing locations at Fisherman's Wharf may be deleted from the display, See Paragraph 64); and
the user interface element applies the geographic context to the ambiguous query (POIs that are within the secondary region may be determined and at step 568, the determined POIs may be removed from the display. As per the example above, if the area of the map previously containing POIs (i.e. the primary region) is the city of San Francisco and the secondary region (i.e. area marked by user as portion of the primary region to be deleted) is Fisherman's Wharf, then at step 568 all POIs representing locations at Fisherman's Wharf may be deleted from the display, See Paragraph 64).
The Jakobson et al. reference as modified by Hannson et al. and Smith et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 4, Jakobson et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the geographic context corresponds to a response to another geographic query (the user may modify the selected region 608a by selecting (e.g. with his/her finger 610 or pointing device) a new region 608b. In response to receiving new user input selecting the new region 608b, the mapping application may automatically update the list of search results (e.g. by re-running the search query 664 against the mapping server or an internal data store, using the new coordinates of the previously-selected and newly-selected regions) and display an updated list 666b of POIs, See Paragraph 81).
The Jakobson et al. reference as modified by Hannson et al. and Smith et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2. With respect to claim 5, Jakobson et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the geographic context corresponds to a navigation route between a starting position and an ending position (the "user-selected arbitrary region" discussed above may be an automatically-selected region surrounding a route displayed by the mapping application, onto which the user may add additional region(s). For example, the mapping application may display a route over a dozen streets from point A to point B, making the "selected region" the dozen streets comprising the route (alternatively, also including a user-defined region a certain offset from the route.), See Paragraph 6).
The Jakobson et al. reference as modified by Hannson et al. and Smith et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 5. With respect to claim 6, Jakobson et al. teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the user interface element corresponds to the navigation route (the "user-selected arbitrary region" discussed above may be an automatically-selected region surrounding a route displayed by the mapping application, onto which the user may add additional region(s). For example, the mapping application may display a route over a dozen streets from point A to point B, making the "selected region" the dozen streets comprising the route (alternatively, also including a user-defined region a certain offset from the route.), See Paragraph 6).
The Jakobson et al. reference as modified by Hannson et al. and Smith et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 5. With respect to claim 7, Jakobson et al. teaches the method of claim 5, wherein:
each of the plurality of search results corresponds to a respective location within the geographic area (combining search results (i.e. query resulting in one or more POIs) with an arbitrary region of a digital map, See Paragraph 6),
the portion of the plurality of search results that is not relevant to the geographic context corresponds to locations beyond a certain distance of the navigation route (POIs and/or the POIs graphics 660 displayed on the digital map 604 within the selected region 608a, may be dynamically (i.e. automatically and in near-real-time) updated in response to the user's altering the selected region 608a (i.e. adding to it/deleting from it, etc.), See Paragraph 80).
The Jakobson et al. reference as modified by Hannson et al. and Smith et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 8, Jakobson et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the geographic context corresponds to user-defined content (POIs and/or the POIs graphics 660 displayed on the digital map 604 within the selected region 608a, may be dynamically (i.e. automatically and in near-real-time) updated in response to the user's altering the selected region 608a (i.e. adding to it/deleting from it, etc.), See Paragraph 80).
The Jakobson et al. reference as modified by Hannson et al. and Smith et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8. With respect to claim 9, Jakobson et al. teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising:
receiving a plurality of selections of respective places favorited by the user, to define the user-defined content (POIs and/or the POIs graphics 660 displayed on the digital map 604 within the selected region 608a, may be dynamically (i.e. automatically and in near-real-time) updated in response to the user's altering the selected region 608a (i.e. adding to it/deleting from it, etc.), See Paragraph 80).
The Jakobson et al. reference as modified by Hannson et al. and Smith et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8. With respect to claim 10, Jakobson et al. teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising:
receiving user-defined shapes to define the user-defined content (The selected region 406 is a complex polygon whose shape and area may be costly to transmit back to the mapping server, in order to match POIs strictly within the area of the selected region 406, See Paragraph 44).
With respect to claim 11, Jakobson et al.teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing system to perform operations for displaying geographic search results, the operations comprising:
receiving, from a server system and in response to a query related to a geographic area including a geographic context, a plurality of search results (combining search results (i.e. query resulting in one or more POIs), See Paragraph 6);
providing a digital map of the geographic area via a user interface (The POIs retrieved by the mapping application (e.g. based on the search query, dimensions of the map and any other logic used by the mapping application) are then further filtered to produce a subset of POIs which are within the geographic confines of the user's selected region, See Paragraph 6). Jakobson et al. does not disclose identifying, by one or more processors, at least one of the plurality of the search results based on a relationship to the geographic context and the respective weighted criteria. Jakobson et al. does not disclose assigning, by the one or more processors, a score for the plurality of search results, wherein the score is based on how often users select the search result in response to entering the query.
However, Hannson et al. teaches assigning, by the one or more processors, a score for the plurality of search results, wherein the score is based on how often users select the search result in response to entering the query (Paragraph 156 discloses layers can be recommended based on a user usage and/or viewing patterns. Users can rate and review layers through an interactive process. The top layer associated with each search can be based upon a layer popularity trend and can be related to user ratings and user reviews. If a particular layer is not relative to the current map displayed, the layer can be hidden);
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jakobson et al. with Smith et al. to include assigning, by the one or more processors, a score for the plurality of search results, wherein the score is based on how often users select the search result in response to entering the query. See Hannson et al. Paragraph(s)5-10.
Jakobson et al. as modified by Hannson et al. does not disclose identifying, by one or more processors, at least one of the plurality of the search results based on a relationship to the geographic context and the respective weighted criteria.
However, Smith et al. discloses identifying, by one or more processors, at least one of the plurality of the search results based on a relationship to the geographic context and the respective weighted criteria (Paragraph 59 discloses map information can include personalized location-based (distance, relevance, etc.) results, including directions and navigation results. By way of example and not limitation the map information can include restaurants in a neighborhood);
displaying the at least one of the plurality of search results as visual indicators at respective geographic locations on the digital map (Paragraph 154 discloses display 1600 that shows mapping information overlaid with user controls. The different controls 1602, 1604, and 1606 are placed on different layers and there is an intelligence associated with each control 1602, 1604, and 1606. A layer captures a local augmentation of available information and the display provides a complex, multi-layer world made of raster, vector, cultural objects, moving elements, people, avatars, bots and other elements. Layers are basically a set of geo-coded entities (e.g., points, lines, polygons) and their extent and attributes (e.g., name, photo, URLs, . . . )).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jakobson et al. and Hannson et al. with Smith et al. to include identifying, by one or more processors, at least one of the plurality of the search results based on a relationship to the geographic context and the respective weighted criteria. This would have facilitated layering of search results in order to improve displayed relevancy. See Smith et al. Paragraph(s) 2-16.
With respect to claim 12, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 2, because claim 12 is substantially equivalent to claim 2.
With respect to claim 13, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 3, because claim 13 is substantially equivalent to claim 3.
With respect to claim 14, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 4, because claim 14 is substantially equivalent to claim 4.
With respect to claim 15, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 5, because claim 15 is substantially equivalent to claim 5.
With respect to claim 16, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 6, because claim 16 is substantially equivalent to claim 6.
With respect to claim 17, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 7, because claim 17 is substantially equivalent to claim 7.
With respect to claim 18, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 8, because claim 18 is substantially equivalent to claim 8.
With respect to claim 19, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 9, because claim 19 is substantially equivalent to claim 9.
With respect to claim 20, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 10, because claim 20 is substantially equivalent to claim 10.
The Jakobson et al. reference as modified by Hannson et al. and Smith et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 21, Smith et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the weighted criteria are based on how often users select the search result in response to entering the query (Paragraph 156 discloses layers can be recommended based on a user usage and/or viewing patterns. Users can rate and review layers through an interactive process. The top layer associated with each search can be based upon a layer popularity trend and can be related to user ratings and user reviews. If a particular layer is not relative to the current map displayed, the layer can be hidden). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the Jakobson et al. reference and the Smith et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 21.
The Jakobson et al. reference as modified by Hannson et al. and Smith et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 22, Smith et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining at least of the plurality of search results to display, prioritizing at least one of the search results based on the respective weighted criteria (Paragraph 156 discloses layers can be recommended based on a user usage and/or viewing patterns. Users can rate and review layers through an interactive process. The top layer associated with each search can be based upon a layer popularity trend and can be related to user ratings and user reviews. If a particular layer is not relative to the current map displayed, the layer can be hidden). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the Jakobson et al. reference and the Smith et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 22.
The Jakobson et al. reference as modified by Hannson et al. and Smith et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 23, Smith et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising visually emphasizing the search results based on their weighted criteria (Paragraph 156 discloses layers can be recommended based on a user usage and/or viewing patterns. Users can rate and review layers through an interactive process. The top layer associated with each search can be based upon a layer popularity trend and can be related to user ratings and user reviews. If a particular layer is not relative to the current map displayed, the layer can be hidden). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the Jakobson et al. reference and the Smith et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 23.
The Jakobson et al. reference as modified by Hannson et al. and Smith et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 24, Smith et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising filtering the plurality of search results to display only those search results having a weighted criteria score above a predetermined threshold (Paragraph 212 discloses requests received exceeds a threshold level, indicating the area has turned into a hot spot and the available capacity is calculated, at 2910, to determine if the images associated with the particular geographic location can be provided to the multitude of users at substantially the same time). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of independent claim 1 provided above, combining the Jakobson et al. reference and the Smith et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 24.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG-PUB 20080016472 is directed to Markup Language for Interactive Geographic Information System: [0035] The system combines satellite imagery, photographs, maps and other geographic data, and Internet search capability so as to enable a user to view imagery of the planet and related geographic information (e.g., locales such as islands and cities; and points of interest such as local restaurants, hospitals, parks, hotels, and schools). The system further allows the user to conduct local searches, get travel directions to a location or between two locations. The user can virtually fly from space (e.g., some vantage point above the Earth) to and around an entered target address or location, such as his neighborhood or other area of interest. Results are displayed in a 3D view. The user can tilt and rotate the view to see 3D terrain and buildings. The user can also annotate maps, and/or enable data layers to show, for example, parks, schools, hospitals, airports, shopping, and other points of interest or locales. The user can also layer multiple searches, save results to folders, and share search results and maps with others. In addition, a data exchange format referred to herein as KML (Keyhole Markup Language) enables the user to share useful annotations and view thousands of data points created by other system users.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 830-630.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154