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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application, with claims 1, 16, and 20 being independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 August 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 is/are 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.
With respect to claims 1, 16, and 20, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to:
If the map/map data is a tiled map or any kind of map, such as a photo of a room, layout, etc. The disclosure in paragraph 20 sets forth that the disclosed techniques...”by providing a tiled mapping system that uses offsets to present the real-time locations of objects. The disclosed techniques generate tiled map data...”
How the offsets are computed and with what they are respect to. As currently drafted, the claim calls for computing a pair of offsets and then adding them to the first location to generate a first position and a second position. Are the offsets a coordinate offset, such that the offset is applied to the coordinate/location of the object to offset the location of the object on the map? Paragraph 78 seems to set forth the offset is a location offset, comprising at least two coordinates, (e.g., x and y).
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations. Claims depending thereon do not cure the totality of the deficiencies raised and are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to the claim from which they depend.
With respect to claims 4 and 19, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to how the avatar is positioned on the map and moved without changing the first location that is stored for each tiled coordinate. Outside of the claim language itself, the specification doesn’t appear to explicitly describe the without changing aspect. The disclosure, does describe using shared offsets, see paragraphs 75-87. The disclosure does not appear to describe another means by which the avatar is moved outside of the location changing and/or using offsets. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the avatar being positioned on the map and moved without changing the first location that is stored for each tiled coordinate.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the totality of the deficiencies raised and are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to the claim from which they depend.
With respect to claim 5, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to how the first location is adjusted to present the avatar at relative positions on the different zoom levels of the map, when claim 4 sets forth that the avatar is moved without changing the first location. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 8 (and claims depending thereon), given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to how the second pair of offsets are computed to cause the avatar to be presented at the current position using the second location. The current position is the current position of the avatar on the map – so how are the offsets computed to display the avatar at the position in which it finds itself? Is the second pair of offsets the current offset value? If so, what is the other offset value and how is that used to cause the avatar to be presented at the current position? Finally, how is the avatar presented at the current position on the map by adjusting the second location of the object based on the second pair of offsets, when the avatar is already at the current position? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the totality of the deficiencies raised and are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to the claim from which they depend.
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 1-4, 6-10, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) rendering a screen on a display comprising: selecting at least one resolution for rendering the screen based on a set of parameters associated with the screen; and rendering the screen with the at least one selected resolution on the display.
As drafted, the claimed limitations are mental process that can be performed by a human mind. For instance, the limitation “generating map data that includes a first location of an object; computing a first pair of offsets comprising an initial offset and a destination offset for animating movement of the avatar; positioning the avatar on a map at a first position corresponding to a first location of the object adjusted by the initial offset; and animating movement of the avatar on the map from the first position towards a second position corresponding to the first location of the object adjusted by the destination process”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is drawing an object/avatar on a map and then animating/moving the avatar towards the destination position. While not required by the claim, displaying the animation can be done on pen and paper or if on a digital display would merely be extra solution activity. The process is a mental process. Thus, the claim, as drafted, falls at least within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. It is noted, that a similar argument could be made for the claim to additionally fall within one or more groups, such as “mathematical concepts”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the method, is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 16, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 16, and 20 are not patent eligible.
Similar mapping and rationale can be performed for dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, 14, 15, and 17-19. For instance, with respect to claim 3, the first location corresponds to a last known location of the object, which could be recorded on a map, in a person’s mind, etc. The noted dependent claims do not cure the deficiency noted with respect to claims from which they depend. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 6-18, and 20 as currently drafted are not patent eligible.
Claims 5, and 11-13 in combination with the claims from which they depend are not rejected. For instance, paragraph 21 sets forth “This enables real time presentation of movement of objects (e.g., avatars) on a map very quickly and efficiently. Having the tiled mapping system present object locations using shared offsets avoids having to recompute the locations at every level of the map which cuts down on the amount of resources and battery power consumed and improves efficiencies of the device”.
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, 6-8, 14-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US PG Publication 2023/0258465) in view of Assouline et al. (US PG Publication 2022/0156999).
Regarding claim 1, teaches Zhou teaches a method comprising: generating map data that includes a first location of an object (see for instance, paragraph 43, 47, and 48 and figs. 3-12 and 16-27);
computing a first pair of offsets comprising an initial offset and a destination offset for animating movement of an avatar (see for instance, paragraph 106-108, 131, 132, 146 and figs. 3-12 and 16-27. The navigation result module is used for drawing the trajectory, obtaining the image resources of the starting point and ending point of the current skin, and setting and rendering the current image resources, see for instance, paragraph 146. Fig. 11 shows the terminal displays for route planning for the target object generated by the user through the route planning system, see for instance, paragraph 93);
positioning the avatar on a map at a first position corresponding to the first location of the object adjusted by the initial offset (As shown in fig. 25, during route navigation, a 3D dynamic 3D model is displayed in the electronic map, see for instance, paragraph 142. The style, size, and animation frame rate of a mark identifying the position of the target object can be flexibly configured through configuration files, and thus, functions can be updated directly by modifying or adding configuration files without modifying the code logic by a client, see for instance, paragraph 143. As shown in fig. 4, the dynamic 3D model with the changeable display state is displayed at the current position of the target object in the navigation route, a person model in the figure marks the position of the target object, and the display state of the person model is matched with the moving state of the target object, see for instance, paragraph 53); and
animating movement of the avatar on the map from the first position towards a second position corresponding to the first location of the object adjusted by the destination offset (see for instance, paragraph 106-108, 131, 132, 146 and figs. 3-12 and 16-27The navigation result module is used for drawing the trajectory, obtaining the image resources of the starting point and ending point of the current skin, and setting and rendering the current image resources, see for instance, paragraph 146).
Zhao does not teach computing a first pair of offsets comprising an initial offset and a destination offset for animating movement of an avatar.
In the same art of avatars and navigation, Assouline teaches an augmentation system provides a user-based publication platform that enables user to select a geolocation on a map and upload content associated with the selected geolocation, see for instance, paragraph 36. Virtual objects can be added to a scene in a video and be moved relative and based on the movement of the real-world object, see for instance, paragraph 102. As one example, the size of the virtual object can increase or decrease based on a change in size of the real-world object...if the real-world object from one frame in the video to another frame in the video comes closer to the client device, the virtual object position and movement can similarity be changed, see for instance, paragraph 102. Namely, the virtual object is also moved closer to the client device by the same distance and along the same trajectory as the real-world object, see for instance, paragraph 102. The augmentation system computes an offset between a real-world reference point corresponding to the real-world object and an initial position of the virtual object, see for instance, paragraph 108. As the real-world object moves in a given direction and along a given trajectory, the augmentation system adjusts or moves the virtual object along the same direction and trajectory in a way that maintains the same offset relative to the real-world reference point corresponding to the real-world object, see for instance paragraph 108. Once the virtual animated object is placed at a selected position, a 3D offset is computed relative to a 3D reference position of a given real-world object, see for instance, paragraph 139.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Zhou and Evangelista in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate augmented reality makeup as taught by Assouline into Zhou’s animated navigation system, as displaying friends on a map and adding in an offset to the real world object, such as described by Assouline was well known at the time of the effective filing date invention and would have yielded predictable results in combination with Zhou.
The modification of Zhou with Assouline would have explicitly allowed computing a first pair of offsets comprising an initial offset and a destination offset for animating movement of an avatar.
The motivation for combining Zhou with Assouline would have been to improve the user experience, enhance functionality and one way to determine an initial position for the virtual object.
Regarding claim 2, Zhou in view of Assouline teach the method of claim 1 and further teaches the object comprising a device associated with the avatar, further comprising: receiving the first location of the object from positioning circuitry of the device associated with the avatar (see for instance, Zhou, paragraph 43 and Assouline, paragraphs 55 and 171). The motivation to combine Zhou and Assouline is the same as that which is set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Zhou in view of Assouline teach the method of claim 1 and further teach wherein the first location corresponds to a last known location of the object (see for instance, Zhou, paragraphs 43, 50, and 92 and Assouline, paragraphs 102 and 108). The motivation to combine Zhou and Assouline is the same as that which is set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Zhou in view of Assouline teach the method of claim 1 and further teach accessing historical locations of the object; computing a speed of movement of the object based on the historical locations of the object; and animating the movement of the avatar on the map at a rate corresponding to the computed speed of movement of the object (see for instance, Zhou paragraphs 129, 130, and 147 and Assouline, paragraphs 102-105, 108, and 139). The motivation to combine Zhou and Assouline is the same as that which is set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Zhou in view of Assouline teach the method of claim 1 and further teach receiving a second location of the object representing a more recent location of the object relative to the first location of the object; determining a current position of the avatar on the map; and identifying a current offset value relative to the first location being used to present the avatar on the map at the current position (see for instance, Zhou paragraphs 85, 129, 130, and 151 and Assouline, paragraphs 102-105, 108, and 139).The motivation to combine Zhou and Assouline is the same as that which is set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Zhou in view of Assouline teach the method of claim 7 and further teach replacing the first location of the object in the map with the second location of the object; computing a second pair of offsets to cause the avatar to be presented at the current position using the second location; and presenting the avatar at the current position on the map by adjusting the second location of the object based on the second pair of offsets (see for instance, Zhou paragraphs 85, 129, 130, and 151 and Assouline, paragraphs 102-105, 108, and 139).The motivation to combine Zhou and Assouline is the same as that which is set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Zhou in view of Assouline teach the method of claim 1 and further teach wherein the avatar movement is animated as a smooth transition from point to point on the map without teleporting the avatar from the first location to the second position (see for instance, Zhou paragraphs 85, 87, 127, 129, 130, 140, and 151 and Assouline, paragraphs 102-105, 108, and 139). The motivation to combine Zhou and Assouline is the same as that which is set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Zhou in view of Assouline teach the method of claim 1 and further teach wherein the object comprises a first device of a friend of a user, and wherein the map is presented on a second device of the user to represent a real time location of the friend (The map can indicate current or past location of “friends” of a user, see for instance, Assouline, paragraph 40. A user can share their location and status information with other users of the messaging system, with this location and status information being similarly displayed within the context of a map interface of the messaging client to select users, see for instance, Assouline, paragraph 40). The motivation to combine Zhou and Assouline is the same as that which is set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claims 16 and 20, claims 16 and 20 recite substantially similar subject matter as to that set forth in claim 1 and those corresponding limitations are rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which was set forth in claim 1. In addition, Zhou in view of Assouline teach a system comprising: at least one processor configured to perform operations (see for instance, Zhou, paragraphs 176 and 177 and Assouline, paragraph 167) and a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium that includes instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a user system, cause the user system to perform operations (see for instance, Zhou, paragraphs 176 and 177 and Assouline, paragraph 167).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially similar subject matter as to that set forth in claim 2 is rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially similar subject matter as to that set forth in claim 3 is rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Since no prior art is being applied to the claims 4, 5, 9-13, and 19, they would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm ET.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/MICHAEL J COBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights