Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The current application had a preliminary amendment prior to examination on 04/23/2024. As such, as of 04/23/2024 the claims stand as:
Claims 1-8 are pending
Claims 1-8 are amended
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 is written in improper claim form, it is unclear of the claim is dependent on claim 1 or a separate independent claim. If the claim is an independent claim, claim 8 must have a dependency chain separate from claim 1.
The office interprets claim 8 to be an independent claim
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“a user state accumulation unit, including one or more processors, configured to” in claim 1.
“a route search unit, including one or more processors, configured to” in claim 1.
“a required time calculation unit, including one or more processors, configured to” in claim 1.
“a search result display unit, including one or more processors, configured to” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6 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.
Claim limitation “user state accumulation unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of a unit that “stores information indicating a state of a user” (¶ 0010) and “accumulates information regarding a current state of the user” (¶ 0022). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to acquire and accumulate. The specification merely describes the accumulation unit acquires data from the “user state ascertain unit” (¶ 0028) for redistribution to other units such as the “route search unit” (¶ 0031) and “required time calculation unit” (¶ 0035). From the specification, it appears the unit performs a software function, not hardware. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “route search unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of a unit that “searches for a route to a destination” (¶ 0031) based on map information (¶ 0031), disaster information (¶ 0032). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to how the unit searches. From the specification, it appears the unit performs a software function, not hardware. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “required time calculation unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of a unit “calculates a required time to the destination in consideration of the state of the user for each route searched by the route search unit” (¶ 0035). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to how the unit calculates. From the specification, it appears the unit performs a software function, not hardware. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “search result display unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of a unit that “displays the searched routes and the required time of each route on a map, and returns a display screen on which various types of information such as weather information or disaster information is superimposed to the client terminal” (¶ 0052). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to display. More specifically, the display unit generates intended image to display, but does not on its own inherently display said image. Instead the unit generates a “display screen” for the client terminal (¶ 0052). From the specification, it appears the unit performs a software function, not hardware. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Given the dependence of claims 2-6 on claim 1, claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-6 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.
Claim limitation “user state accumulation unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of a unit that “stores information indicating a state of a user” (¶ 0010) and “accumulates information regarding a current state of the user” (¶ 0022). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to acquire and accumulate. The specification merely describes the accumulation unit acquires data from the “user state ascertain unit” (¶ 0028) for redistribution to other units such as the “route search unit” (¶ 0031) and “required time calculation unit” (¶ 0035). From the specification, it appears the unit performs a software function, not hardware. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “route search unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of a unit that “searches for a route to a destination” (¶ 0031) based on map information (¶ 0031), disaster information (¶ 0032). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to how the unit searches. From the specification, it appears the unit performs a software function, not hardware. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “required time calculation unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of a unit “calculates a required time to the destination in consideration of the state of the user for each route searched by the route search unit” (¶ 0035). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to how the unit calculates. From the specification, it appears the unit performs a software function, not hardware. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “search result display unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of a unit that “displays the searched routes and the required time of each route on a map, and returns a display screen on which various types of information such as weather information or disaster information is superimposed to the client terminal” (¶ 0052). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to display. More specifically, the display unit generates intended image to display, but does not on its own inherently display said image. Instead the unit generates a “display screen” for the client terminal (¶ 0052). From the specification, it appears the unit performs a software function, not hardware. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Given the dependence of claims 2-6 on claim 1, claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed at a computer program to cause a computer to execute the units of claim 1. As written, the program of claim 8 has no physical or tangible for and is therefore software per se.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory category?
Yes, with respect to claims 1-7, an apparatus and method is recited consisting of a combination of units for collecting user information and generating routes.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The following claims identify the limitations that recite an abstract idea in italics and that recite additional elements in bold:
(Currently Amended) A route presentation apparatus comprising: a user state accumulation unit, including one or more processors, configured to storeuser; a route search unit, including one or more processors, configured to search for at least one route to a destination; a required time calculation unit, including one or more processors, configured to calculate a required time in response to the state of the user for each of the route; and a search result display unit, including one or more processors, configured to display the route and the required time for the route on a map.
(Currently Amended) The route presentation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the required time calculation unit is configured to calculate the required time using a walking speed or a stride based on the state of the user.
(Currently Amended) The route presentation apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the required time calculation unit is configured to calculate the required time by decreasing the walking speed or the stride in response to an inclination angle on the route.
(Currently Amended) The route presentation apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the required time calculation unit is configured to prioritize the route based on a difficulty of walking on the route, a possibility of a disaster encountered on the route, and a past disaster occurrence situation on the route.
(Currently Amended) The route presentation apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the search result display unit is configured to superimpose and displaymap.
(Currently Amended) The route presentation apparatus according claim 1,wherein the route search unit is configured to select a destination based on the state of the user.
(Currently Amended) A method comprising: searching, by one or more processors, for at least one route to a destination; calculating, by the one or more processors, a required time in response to a state of a user for each of the route; and displaying, by the one or more processors, the route and the required time for the route on a map.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite an abstract idea. The methods show organizing human activity – concepts performed in the human mind (including observations, evaluation and judgment opinions). The claims within the claimed invention are directed towards an abstract process that can be performed in the human mind wherein a safe route for a user to take based on the user’s abilities and known/received hazards.
Additionally, the “required time calculation unit” within claim 1 recites a mathematical concept to determine many of the limitations, including using mathematical relationships for varying the travel time based on user and route variables. See Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. The claims cited as a whole merely recites a method which performs an abstract idea. The structural components claimed (i.e., additional elements that are bolded above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely the processing of user state and general route data to create a route to a destination. The application of generated route to a display via the “search result display unit” amounts to a mere instruction to apply an exemption as the display unit merely applies the route information on a digital screen. Overall the current claims as written can be performed in the human mind wherein a route to a destination can be created using understood human performance limitations and previous knowledge of routes and disasters to formulate a viable escape path.
Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of the computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claim, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea and can be performed in the human mind. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Overall, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ITAMIYA (JP 2012252614 A).
Regarding claim 1:
ITAMIYA discloses:
A route presentation apparatus comprising: (see at least ITAMIYA, ¶ 0038, "4 to 9 are diagrams showing examples of screens displayed on the display of the mobile terminal 110 by the tsunami evacuation navigation system 100. FIG. FIG. 4 shows an example screen 400 when a major tsunami warning is issued. It displays information on the epicenter, depth, and magnitude of the earthquake, as well as the height and arrival time of the tsunami. It also displays the current location, the time available for evacuation, and the time required to reach the nearest evacuation site. If you select the navigation button here, the screen in Figure 5 will be displayed.")
a user state accumulation unit, including one or more processors, configured to store(see at least ITAMIYA, ¶ 0019, "First, the user environment information acquisition unit 101 acquires user environment information from various terminals connected via a network or from a user information storage unit (not shown) prepared in advance within the system. The user environment information includes the user's current location, walking (running) speed, whether or not the user is using a wheelchair, whether or not a group evacuation is taking place, and the like. ")
a route search unit, including one or more processors, configured to search for at least one route to a destination; (see at least ITAMIYA, ¶ 0022, "The evacuation site/evacuation route determination unit 104 determines an evacuation site and an evacuation route based on information acquired from the user environment information acquisition unit 101, the tsunami information acquisition unit 102, and the map elevation data acquisition unit 103. Specifically, the system calculates the evacuation distance by multiplying the user's movement speed and the time until the tsunami arrives, and then evaluates the safety of multiple points within a circle whose radius is the evacuation distance from the current location based on factors such as altitude, distance from the coast, and ease of identification. Among these locations, those highly rated as evacuation locations are listed to generate a list of candidate evacuation locations. Calculate evacuation routes for each potential evacuation site. The map elevation data includes pre-registered roads that are not suitable for evacuation, such as roads prone to congestion, low-altitude areas, and roads along rivers. Therefore, an evacuation route is generated that does not pass through roads that are not suitable for evacuation. For each evacuation route, the time required to reach the evacuation site is calculated, taking into account the presence of slopes and obstacles. Finally, the safest and fastest possible evacuation location and the safest evacuation route to get there are determined. Evacuation routes will be decided flexibly. Evacuation routes are not limited to roads, and routes that cut through fields may be selected to reach evacuation sites in the shortest time possible. To achieve this, the map data is pre-stored with metadata indicating whether or not each location is passable by people, such as a field or a road crossing a low fence. On the other hand, an evacuation route that avoids congested roads may be determined by referring to traffic congestion history, etc.")
a required time calculation unit, including one or more processors, configured to (see at least ITAMIYA, ¶ 0022, "The evacuation site/evacuation route determination unit 104 determines an evacuation site and an evacuation route based on information acquired from the user environment information acquisition unit 101, the tsunami information acquisition unit 102, and the map elevation data acquisition unit 103. Specifically, the system calculates the evacuation distance by multiplying the user's movement speed and the time until the tsunami arrives, and then evaluates the safety of multiple points within a circle whose radius is the evacuation distance from the current location based on factors such as altitude, distance from the coast, and ease of identification. Among these locations, those highly rated as evacuation locations are listed to generate a list of candidate evacuation locations. Calculate evacuation routes for each potential evacuation site. The map elevation data includes pre-registered roads that are not suitable for evacuation, such as roads prone to congestion, low-altitude areas, and roads along rivers. Therefore, an evacuation route is generated that does not pass through roads that are not suitable for evacuation. For each evacuation route, the time required to reach the evacuation site is calculated, taking into account the presence of slopes and obstacles. Finally, the safest and fastest possible evacuation location and the safest evacuation route to get there are determined. Evacuation routes will be decided flexibly. Evacuation routes are not limited to roads, and routes that cut through fields may be selected to reach evacuation sites in the shortest time possible. To achieve this, the map data is pre-stored with metadata indicating whether or not each location is passable by people, such as a field or a road crossing a low fence. On the other hand, an evacuation route that avoids congested roads may be determined by referring to traffic congestion history, etc.")
calculate a required time in response to the state of the user for each of the route; and (see at least ITAMIYA, ¶ 0015, "For example, in the event of a tsunami, the optimal evacuation location and evacuation route will differ for people who have difficulty walking quickly, such as the elderly or wheelchair users, people who have cars, and people evacuating in groups."; ¶ 0019, "First, the user environment information acquisition unit 101 acquires user environment information from various terminals connected via a network or from a user information storage unit (not shown) prepared in advance within the system. The user environment information includes the user's current location, walking (running) speed, whether or not the user is using a wheelchair, whether or not a group evacuation is taking place, and the like."; ¶ 0022)
a search result display unit, including one or more processors, configured to display the route and the required time for the route on a map. (see at least ITAMIYA, ¶ 0040, "FIG. 6 shows an example of a navigation screen 600 that displays evacuation sites and evacuation routes from the current location in a three-dimensional manner. In addition to the current time, this screen 600 also displays the estimated time of arrival at the destination, the time of arrival of the tsunami, the distance to the destination, the direction to go, and so on. The lower screen, which is displayed two-dimensionally, displays landmark buildings and routes.")
Regarding claim 6:
ITAMIYA discloses the limitations within claim 1 and further discloses:
the route search unit is configured to select a destination based on the state of the user. (see at least ITAMIYA, ¶ 0015, "(4) Where and how to evacuate will vary greatly depending on each person's abilities, location, and situation. For example, in the event of a tsunami, the optimal evacuation location and evacuation route will differ for people who have difficulty walking quickly, such as the elderly or wheelchair users, people who have cars, and people evacuating in groups."; ¶ 0022, “The evacuation site/evacuation route determination unit 104 determines an evacuation site and an evacuation route based on information acquired from the user environment information acquisition unit 101, the tsunami information acquisition unit 102, and the map elevation data acquisition unit 103.”)
Regarding claim 7:
With regards to claim 7, this claim is the method claim to apparatus claim 1 and is substantially similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Regarding claim 8:
With regards to claim 8, this claim is the computer program claim to apparatus claim 1 and is substantially similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITAMIYA (JP 2012252614 A) in view of EBELING (US 6145389 A).
Regarding claim 2:
ITAMIYA discloses the limitations within claim 1 and ITAMIYA further discloses:
the required time calculation unit is configured to calculate the required time using a walking speed (see at least ITAMIYA, ¶ 0019, "First, the user environment information acquisition unit 101 acquires user environment information from various terminals connected via a network or from a user information storage unit (not shown) prepared in advance within the system. The user environment information includes the user's current location, walking (running) speed, whether or not the user is using a wheelchair, whether or not a group evacuation is taking place, and the like."; ¶ 0022, "The evacuation site/evacuation route determination unit 104 determines an evacuation site and an evacuation route based on information acquired from the user environment information acquisition unit 101, the tsunami information acquisition unit 102, and the map elevation data acquisition unit 103. Specifically, the system calculates the evacuation distance by multiplying the user's movement speed and the time until the tsunami arrives, and then evaluates the safety of multiple points within a circle whose radius is the evacuation distance from the current location based on factors such as altitude, distance from the coast, and ease of identification. Among these locations, those highly rated as evacuation locations are listed to generate a list of candidate evacuation locations. Calculate evacuation routes for each potential evacuation site. The map elevation data includes pre-registered roads that are not suitable for evacuation, such as roads prone to congestion, low-altitude areas, and roads along rivers. Therefore, an evacuation route is generated that does not pass through roads that are not suitable for evacuation. For each evacuation route, the time required to reach the evacuation site is calculated, taking into account the presence of slopes and obstacles. Finally, the safest and fastest possible evacuation location and the safest evacuation route to get there are determined. Evacuation routes will be decided flexibly. Evacuation routes are not limited to roads, and routes that cut through fields may be selected to reach evacuation sites in the shortest time possible. To achieve this, the map data is pre-stored with metadata indicating whether or not each location is passable by people, such as a field or a road crossing a low fence. On the other hand, an evacuation route that avoids congested roads may be determined by referring to traffic congestion history, etc.")
ITAMIYA does not disclose, but EBELING teaches:
or a stride based on the state of the user. (see at least EBELING, Col 3 line 56 - Col 4 line 10, "The present invention is a pedometer that operates by calculating the distance traveled by a person's foot when that person is walking or running. The length of each stride is calculated accurately from data provided by an accelerometer that measures the acceleration of the wearer's foot. The total distance traveled is computed as the sum of the individual stride lengths. Since the length of each stride is calculated independently, this pedometer calculates the distance traveled accurately even if the person changes speed and gait while walking or running. It is necessary to measure the stride length for only one foot, since both feet travel the same distance."; Col 11 lines 50-60, "Accordingly, the reader will see that the pedometer of this invention can accurately measure the stride of a user while walking or running, and moreover this measurement is accurate over a wide range of different speeds and gaits. Furthermore, the pedometer can be calibrated for a particular user, either by entering data based on the person's physical characteristics, or by using a calibration method whereby the pedometer collects acceleration data for different walking and running speeds and gaits. The pedometer is also small and light and thus convenient and inconspicuous for the user to wear.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the collection of user movement speeds for determining evacuation routes within ITAYMIYA to include the collection of user stride data as within EBELING to yield a more effective evacuation route calculation which accounts for user's displacement from varying user stride lengths.
Regarding claim 3:
ITAMIYA on view of EBELING discloses the limitations within claim 2 and ITAMIYA further discloses:
the required time calculation unit is configured to calculate the required time by decreasing the walking speed or the stride in response to an inclination angle on the route. (see at least ITAMIYA, ¶ 0022, "The evacuation site/evacuation route determination unit 104 determines an evacuation site and an evacuation route based on information acquired from the user environment information acquisition unit 101, the tsunami information acquisition unit 102, and the map elevation data acquisition unit 103. Specifically, the system calculates the evacuation distance by multiplying the user's movement speed and the time until the tsunami arrives, and then evaluates the safety of multiple points within a circle whose radius is the evacuation distance from the current location based on factors such as altitude, distance from the coast, and ease of identification. Among these locations, those highly rated as evacuation locations are listed to generate a list of candidate evacuation locations. Calculate evacuation routes for each potential evacuation site. The map elevation data includes pre-registered roads that are not suitable for evacuation, such as roads prone to congestion, low-altitude areas, and roads along rivers. Therefore, an evacuation route is generated that does not pass through roads that are not suitable for evacuation. For each evacuation route, the time required to reach the evacuation site is calculated, taking into account the presence of slopes and obstacles. Finally, the safest and fastest possible evacuation location and the safest evacuation route to get there are determined. Evacuation routes will be decided flexibly. Evacuation routes are not limited to roads, and routes that cut through fields may be selected to reach evacuation sites in the shortest time possible. To achieve this, the map data is pre-stored with metadata indicating whether or not each location is passable by people, such as a field or a road crossing a low fence. On the other hand, an evacuation route that avoids congested roads may be determined by referring to traffic congestion history, etc.")
ITAMIYA does not disclose, but EBELING teaches:
or the stride (see at least EBELING, Col 3 line 56 - Col 4 line 10, "The present invention is a pedometer that operates by calculating the distance traveled by a person's foot when that person is walking or running. The length of each stride is calculated accurately from data provided by an accelerometer that measures the acceleration of the wearer's foot. The total distance traveled is computed as the sum of the individual stride lengths. Since the length of each stride is calculated independently, this pedometer calculates the distance traveled accurately even if the person changes speed and gait while walking or running. It is necessary to measure the stride length for only one foot, since both feet travel the same distance."; Col 11 lines 50-60, "Accordingly, the reader will see that the pedometer of this invention can accurately measure the stride of a user while walking or running, and moreover this measurement is accurate over a wide range of different speeds and gaits. Furthermore, the pedometer can be calibrated for a particular user, either by entering data based on the person's physical characteristics, or by using a calibration method whereby the pedometer collects acceleration data for different walking and running speeds and gaits. The pedometer is also small and light and thus convenient and inconspicuous for the user to wear.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the collection of user movement speeds for determining evacuation routes within ITAYMIYA to include the collection of user stride data as within EBELING to yield a more effective evacuation route calculation which accounts for user's displacement from varying user stride lengths.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITAMIYA (JP 2012252614 A) in view of WAKAMEDA (JP2016224755A).
Regarding claim 4:
ITAMIYA discloses the limitations within claim 1 and ITAMIYA further discloses:
the required time calculation unit is configured to prioritize the route based on (see at least ITAMIYA, ¶ 0022, "The evacuation site/evacuation route determination unit 104 determines an evacuation site and an evacuation route based on information acquired from the user environment information acquisition unit 101, the tsunami information acquisition unit 102, and the map elevation data acquisition unit 103. Specifically, the system calculates the evacuation distance by multiplying the user's movement speed and the time until the tsunami arrives, and then evaluates the safety of multiple points within a circle whose radius is the evacuation distance from the current location based on factors such as altitude, distance from the coast, and ease of identification. Among these locations, those highly rated as evacuation locations are listed to generate a list of candidate evacuation locations. Calculate evacuation routes for each potential evacuation site. The map elevation data includes pre-registered roads that are not suitable for evacuation, such as roads prone to congestion, low-altitude areas, and roads along rivers. Therefore, an evacuation route is generated that does not pass through roads that are not suitable for evacuation. For each evacuation route, the time required to reach the evacuation site is calculated, taking into account the presence of slopes and obstacles. Finally, the safest and fastest possible evacuation location and the safest evacuation route to get there are determined. Evacuation routes will be decided flexibly. Evacuation routes are not limited to roads, and routes that cut through fields may be selected to reach evacuation sites in the shortest time possible. To achieve this, the map data is pre-stored with metadata indicating whether or not each location is passable by people, such as a field or a road crossing a low fence. On the other hand, an evacuation route that avoids congested roads may be determined by referring to traffic congestion history, etc.")
a difficulty of walking on the route, (see at least ITAMIYA, ¶ 0015, "For example, in the event of a tsunami, the optimal evacuation location and evacuation route will differ for people who have difficulty walking quickly, such as the elderly or wheelchair users, people who have cars, and people evacuating in groups."; ¶ 0022)
a possibility of a disaster encountered on the route, and (see at least ITAMIYA, ¶ 0018, “As shown in FIG. 1, the tsunami evacuation navigation system 100 includes a user environment information acquisition unit 101, a tsunami information acquisition unit 102, a map elevation data acquisition unit 103, an evacuation location and evacuation route determination unit 105, and an evacuation navigation information presentation unit 106.”; ¶ 0022, "The map elevation data includes pre-registered roads that are not suitable for evacuation, such as roads prone to congestion, low-altitude areas, and roads along rivers. Therefore, an evacuation route is generated that does not pass through roads that are not suitable for evacuation."; ¶ 0031, “When the tsunami evacuation navigation system 100 receives the user environment information in step S213, it proceeds to step S214 and reads out map elevation data for the area around the user's current location from the map elevation database 160.”)
ITAMIYA does not disclose, but WAKAMEDA teaches:
a past disaster occurrence situation on the route. (see at least WAKAMEDA, ¶ 0021 "The cloud system 7200 is a cloud system centered on a database server that manages disaster prevention information 2b related to information on past landslides and river flooding, evacuation sites, etc., managed by local governments and the like. The geographic information 1b and the disaster prevention information 2b correspond to evacuation support information used to make decisions for safer evacuation of users in the event of a disaster."; ¶ 0175, "By the evacuation destination and evacuation route selection process in the second embodiment described above, in the event of a tsunami disaster, the optimal evacuation destination and evacuation route can be selected in real time, taking into consideration: - whether a disaster is currently occurring at the evacuation destination; - whether the evacuation destination has reached its capacity; - whether a disaster is currently occurring along a candidate evacuation route; - whether the sea level intensity at the evacuation destination is above a threshold; - whether river flooding has occurred in the past along a candidate evacuation route; - whether the travel distance is within a threshold "; ¶ 0224, "Furthermore, by notifying the cloud system 7200 in real time of the evacuation destination in the event of a disaster and the location information during evacuation, the UE 1000 can always receive the latest disaster information from the cloud system 7200, and can determine and guide the evacuation destination and the shortest evacuation route. That is, - A route with a low risk of secondary disaster can be selected. UE1000 identifies an evacuation route based on the disaster type in ETWS notification 2, geographic information (altitude and ground conditions), and disaster prevention information (past landslides, river flooding information, etc.) ")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the evacuation route determination based on user arrival time (speed) and accounting for unsuitable (dangerous) areas within ITAYMIYA to include evacuation route considerations based on past disasters within WAKAMEDA to yield a safer evacuation route planner that recognizes dangerous routes based on previous disasters.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITAMIYA (JP 2012252614 A) in view of TAKAHASHI (JP2009276255A) in further view of BLUMENBERG (US 20130339891 A1).
Regarding claim 5:
ITAMIYA discloses the limitations within claim 1 and ITAMIYA further discloses:
the search result display unit (see at least ITAMIYA, ¶ 0040, "FIG. 6 shows an example of a navigation screen 600 that displays evacuation sites and evacuation routes from the current location in a three-dimensional manner. In addition to the current time, this screen 600 also displays the estimated time of arrival at the destination, the time of arrival of the tsunami, the distance to the destination, the direction to go, and so on. The lower screen, which is displayed two-dimensionally, displays landmark buildings and routes.")
on a map. (see at least ITAMIYA, ¶ 0040)
ITAMIYA does not disclose, but TAKAHASHI teaches:
is configured to superimpose and display (see at least TAKAHASHI, ¶ 0034, "The disaster map-included display map creation unit 46 also includes a guide route display unit 47, which displays the guide route overlaid on the disaster map for easy understanding, including when the guide route is changed due to the occurrence of a disaster. In addition, when various facilities are destroyed by fire or become unusable due to submersion in water, the disaster map display map creation unit 46 can perform processing such as deleting the POI of the facility on the map and masking unusable roads so that they are not displayed. ")
disaster information (see at least TAKAHASHI, ¶ 0012, "Therefore, the main object of the present invention is to provide a map update method in the event of a disaster, which stores map data showing the disaster situation when a disaster occurs, overlays it on the current map for easy understanding, and after the disaster is resolved, allows the original map data to be restored without updating with new map data, and further allows the map data update method to be changed depending on the type of disaster, allowing appropriate updates to be performed. "; ¶ 0034)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the navigation screen rendering the evacuation route within ITAMIYA to include the overlaying of disaster information for warning users of changing routes within TAKAHASHI to yield a safer user routing system that prevents the user from heading into a disaster site.
ITAMIYA in view of TAKAHASHI does not disclose, but BLUMENBERG teaches:
weather information or (see at least BLUMENBERG, ¶ 0005, “While the amount of information that can be stored or accessed within an electronic computing device enables a user to obtain different maps, depending on the user's interest at any given time, it is necessary for the user to switch among different applications in order to view various types of information that may be of interest. For instance, while viewing a weather map, if the user realizes that a rainstorm is approaching, it may be necessary to switch to a different map application to locate a restaurant or shopping mall where the user can take refuge while the storm passes. It would be useful to have a map that contains all of the various types of information that is pertinent to different interests, while at the same time managing the display of that information so that the components of the map relevant to the user's interest at any given time are displayed in a meaningful manner.”; ¶ 0039, “A weather layer 26 can display a radar view of the region, to illustrate areas receiving precipitation, as well as the type and intensity of precipitation. Other information included in the weather layer could include temperature gradients and wind conditions.”; ¶ 0040, “If all of the information contained in each of the layers is displayed to the user in a composite view, the resulting map would be cluttered and may not be comprehensible to the user. At any given time, however, the user is unlikely to be interested in all of the various types of information. For example, while commuting to and from work, the user is unlikely to be interested in the type of information contained in layers directed to commerce, travel or nature. In accordance with disclosed embodiments, the cartography of appropriate layers is adjusted so that individual features are selectively emphasized or de-emphasized in the display of the map. As a result, only the information that is pertinent to the user's current state of interest is displayed. This functionality is achieved by associating different modes of operation with different layers of the map, and perhaps different sets of information within those layers.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the navigation screen rendering the evacuation route with the overlay of disaster information for warning users within ITAMIYA in view of TAKAHASHI to include toggleable map layers such as a weather layer within BLUMENBERG to yield a more effective user route map that notifies the user of additional concerns along a route such as weather (BLUMENBERG , ¶ 0005).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HABERMAN (US 20150142313 A1)
¶ 0038, “FIG. 2 depicts an illustrative environmental map according to some embodiments. As shown in FIG. 2, an environmental map 205 may include a high level diagram or map of a metropolitan area and navigational. According to one embodiment, a use may provide route information indicating a travel route from point A to point D at a start time. The path A-D may be any navigable path, including via walking, automobile, waterway, public transportation, or the like. The mapping system may generate a path from A-D according to mapping and navigation techniques provided according to some embodiments, including using mapping techniques known to those having ordinary skill in the art. For example, the system may determine the path according to an algorithm yielding the fastest route of travel according to a set of user inputs. Those inputs may include mode of transportation (i.e., walking, automobile, public transportation, subway, etc.), shortest duration, shortest distance, non-major roadways, toll avoidance, etc. For example, the user may have chosen to generate path A-D using public transportation systems of the metropolitan area. The returned path A-D may take the user, via walking to point B, a nearest subway station, where the user will take the subway to point C, followed by the user taking a bus from point C to point D, the destination. According to one embodiment, the system may correlate the defined path A-D with the current weather along the path. Advances in meteorological forecasting, the increased granularity information due to the abundance of weather stations and antennae, and faster processing speeds may allow the system to determine current weather conditions on a street-by-street, or block-by-block basis, and further establish accurate forecasts of the weather patterns for other streets and blocks in the area. The system may analyze the weather data provided through various channels according to some embodiments.”
SHIMADA (US 6119065 A)
Col 2 lines 25-31, “To solve the above problems, it is an object of the present invention to provide a pedestrian information providing system, by which it is possible to generate pedestrian route information well-matched to actual walking conditions at high speed, with much consideration on conditions of pedestrians and walking conditions, and to present the information to the users.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAFAEL VELASQUEZ VANEGAS whose telephone number is (571)272-6999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 4.
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, RACHID BENDIDI can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/RAFAEL VELASQUEZ VANEGAS/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664