DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 were originally presented having a filing date of May 30, 2024 and claiming priority to French Application FR2112820 that was filed on December 1, 2021 and PCT/EP2022/0893198 that was filed on November 24, 2022.
A Preliminary Amendment was filed on May 30, 2024.
Claims 1-13 were canceled via Preliminary Amendment.
Claims 14-30 were added via Preliminary Amendment.
Claims 14-30 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement that was filed on May 30, 2024 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 14 recites, “said method being implemented by processing means embedded in an ego motor vehicle”. Similarly, claim 28 recites, “means for implementing the method for determining the visibility of a point of interest as claimed in claim 14.” The originally filed specification states, “[t]he invention also relates to a computer program product downloadable from a communication network and/or recorded on a data medium that is readable by a computer and/or executable by a computer, comprising instructions that, when the program is executed by the computer, cause the latter to implement the method according to the invention”, on pages 6-7. Therefore, the computer is being interpreted as the “means”.
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites, “wherein, in the determining the visibility of the point of interest, a zero visibility is determined for all the points of the remaining route or route portion located downstream of the start point of visibility determination for which the point of interest is located behind.” It is not clear how one should interpret this claim limitation. It is not clear how to determine the remaining route that is located downstream of the start point of visibility for which the point of interest is located behind. The scope of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined by one having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
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 14-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally
link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 14 is directed to a method (i.e., a process).
Therefore, claim 14 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 14 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea. Claim 14 recites:
A method for determining visibility of a point of interest, said method being implemented by processing means embedded in an ego motor vehicle, said method comprising:
selecting or determining a point of interest;
receiving navigation information comprising a three-dimensional map, location coordinates in at least two dimensions of a route or route portion remaining to be traveled, and coordinates in at least two dimensions of the current position of the vehicle;
positioning the point of interest, the route or route portion remaining to be traveled, and the coordinates of the current location of the vehicle in the three-dimensional map;
representing the point of interest by a polygon having at least three vertices of given coordinates in three dimensions belonging to said point of interest;
representing, via an open broken line, the remaining route or route portion, by interconnecting points of change in orientation of the remaining route or route portion;
tracing straight line segments having as first end points on the broken line, and as second end points on the polygon belonging to said point of interest;
determining the visibility of the point of interest from start points formed by each of said segment first ends by determining the visibility of the point of interest for each of said segments; and
determining an optimal visibility window,
wherein, in the determining the visibility, a non-zero visibility of the point of interest between the two ends of the segment is conditional upon a non-intersection between said segment and an element of the three-dimensional map.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “selecting or determining a point of interest; … positioning the point of interest, the route or route portion remaining to be traveled, and the coordinates of the current location of the vehicle in the three-dimensional map; representing the point of interest by a polygon having at least three vertices of given coordinates in three dimensions belonging to said point of interest; representing, via an open broken line, the remaining route or route portion, by interconnecting points of change in orientation of the remaining route or route portion; tracing straight line segments having as first end points on the broken line, and as second end points on the polygon belonging to said point of interest; determining the visibility of the point of interest from start points formed by each of said segment first ends by determining the visibility of the point of interest for each of said segments; and determining an optimal visibility window, wherein, in the determining the visibility, a non-zero visibility of the point of interest between the two ends of the segment is conditional upon a non-intersection between said segment and an element of the three-dimensional map” in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing these limitations in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for determining visibility of a point of interest, said method being implemented by processing means embedded in an ego motor vehicle, said method comprising:
selecting or determining a point of interest;
receiving navigation information comprising a three-dimensional map, location coordinates in at least two dimensions of a route or route portion remaining to be traveled, and coordinates in at least two dimensions of the current position of the vehicle;
positioning the point of interest, the route or route portion remaining to be traveled, and the coordinates of the current location of the vehicle in the three-dimensional map;
representing the point of interest by a polygon having at least three vertices of given coordinates in three dimensions belonging to said point of interest;
representing, via an open broken line, the remaining route or route portion, by interconnecting points of change in orientation of the remaining route or route portion;
tracing straight line segments having as first end points on the broken line, and as second end points on the polygon belonging to said point of interest;
determining the visibility of the point of interest from start points formed by each of said segment first ends by determining the visibility of the point of interest for each of said segments; and
determining an optimal visibility window,
wherein, in the determining the visibility, a non-zero visibility of the point of interest between the two ends of the segment is conditional upon a non-intersection between said segment and an element of the three-dimensional map.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “processing means embedded in an ego motor vehicle” they merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose navigation environment. The processing means embedded in an ego motor vehicle are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the abstract idea steps.
Regarding the additional limitation of “receiving navigation information comprising a three-dimensional map, location coordinates in at least two dimensions of a route or route portion remaining to be traveled, and coordinates in at least two dimensions of the current position of the vehicle”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that merely gather data to perform updating a map. In particular, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general mans of gathering information) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 14 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient o amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the “selecting or determining a point of interest; … positioning the point of interest, the route or route portion remaining to be traveled, and the coordinates of the current location of the vehicle in the three-dimensional map; representing the point of interest by a polygon having at least three vertices of given coordinates in three dimensions belonging to said point of interest; representing, via an open broken line, the remaining route or route portion, by interconnecting points of change in orientation of the remaining route or route portion; tracing straight line segments having as first end points on the broken line, and as second end points on the polygon belonging to said point of interest; determining the visibility of the point of interest from start points formed by each of said segment first ends by determining the visibility of the point of interest for each of said segments; and determining an optimal visibility window, wherein, in the determining the visibility, a non-zero visibility of the point of interest between the two ends of the segment is conditional upon a non-intersection between said segment and an element of the three-dimensional map” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “processing means embedded in an ego motor vehicle” and “receiving navigation information comprising a three-dimensional map, location coordinates in at least two dimensions of a route or route portion remaining to be traveled, and coordinates in at least two dimensions of the current position of the vehicle”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “processing means embedded in an ego motor vehicle” and “receiving navigation information comprising a three-dimensional map, location coordinates in at least two dimensions of a route or route portion remaining to be traveled, and coordinates in at least two dimensions of the current position of the vehicle”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a navigation system. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp. 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 15-30 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 15-30 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 14.
Therefore, claims 14-30 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 14-19 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouget, et al. (Publication US 2006/0111834 A1), in view of Son (Publication US 2024/0003700 A1), Haney, et al. (Publication US 2020/0378785 A1), and Horihata, et al. (Publication US 2021/0356289 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Bouget”, “Son”, “Haney”, and “Horihata”.)
As per claim 14, Bouget discloses a method for determining visibility of a point of interest, said method being implemented by processing means embedded in an ego motor vehicle [see at least Bouget [0048] "A navigation device integrated into a vehicle can be envisaged."; [0008] "the calculating of an index representative of the visibility of outstanding points established from said part of the itinerary … ."], said method comprising:
selecting or determining a point of interest [see at least Bouget [0004] "…There is therefore a need for a guiding process that comprises the stages of:"; [0005] "generating an itinerary between starting and finishing points"; [0032] "The expression POI (point of interest) will now be used to designate an outstanding point."; [0040] "At stage 108, a road plan is established and includes guiding instructions associated with the selected POI and with the generated itinerary."];
receiving navigation information comprising a three-dimensional map, location coordinates in at least two dimensions of a route or route portion remaining to be traveled, and coordinates in at least two dimensions of the current position of the vehicle [see at least Bouget {...3D map} [0063] "Vis3D: for a POI and a given part of the itinerary (an itinerary, a segment or a point),..."; [0005] "generating an itinerary between starting and finishing points"; [0006] "generating guiding instructions including:"; [0007] "the establishing of several outstanding points close to a part of the itinerary taken from a database"; (current position) [0037] "...the server advantageously establishes if the user can be automatically localised, for example by means of a GPS or any other capable means. If affirmative, the user is automatically localised at stage 103 and his position is assimilated to the starting point."; {2D of route} [0051] "ITI: set of itineraries; [0052] Seg2D: set of 2D segments belonging to an itinerary of the ITI set"; [0053] "Pt2D: set of 2D points belonging to one of the 2D segments of the Seg2D set"; {current position of the vehicle} [0039] "...To do so, the localisation as well as the parameters of the POI used in the calculation of the index of visibility are recuperated by the server 3 from the database 2."];
positioning the point of interest, the route or route portion remaining to be traveled, … in the three-dimensional map [see at least Bouget [0063] "Vis3D: for a POI and a given part of the itinerary (an itinerary, a segment or a point), this function transmits an index of visibility of the POI from a part of the itinerary. The real value transmitted by Vis3D is between 0 and 1."];
representing the point of interest … having at least three vertices of given coordinates in three dimensions belonging to said point of interest [see at least Bouget [0066] "The use of angles and remarkable plane surfaces can be as follows: for a given POI, the surfaces that are visually identifiable by a user are established. For a hotel, all the signs and show plates located on the building and bearing the title "Hotel" or the name of the hotel for example are selected. These surfaces will be used as references of visibility. Indeed, someone in the vicinity of the building will identify the building by means of a show plate with greater ease compared to any one of the buildings surfaces. ... The index of visibility advantageously takes into account the colour or shape of the surface or of the POI."];
… tracing straight line segments having as first end points on the … line, and as second end points on the … point of interest [see at least Bouget [0060] "Dis: this function transmits the Euclidean distance between a POI and an observation position."];
determining the visibility of the point of interest from start points formed by each of said segment first ends by determining the visibility of the point of interest for each of said segments [see at least Bouget [0008] "the calculating of an index representative of the visibility of outstanding points established from said part of the itinerary."]; and
determining an optimal visibility window [see at least Bouget [0009] "the selecting of at least one outstanding point according to the index of visibility"; [0020] "…an outstanding point is selected when its index of visibility exceeds a pre-set threshold."],
wherein, in the determining the visibility, a non-zero visibility of the point of interest between the two ends of the segment is … between said segment and an element of the three-dimensional map [see at least Bouget [0063] "Vis3D: for a POI and a given part of the itinerary (an itinerary, a segment or a point), this function transmits an index of visibility of the POI from a part of the itinerary. The real value transmitted by Vis3D is between 0 and 1." [0064] "ValiditePoi: the arguments of this function are the type of a POI, the distance Dist between this POI and a part of the itinerary, and the index of visibility Vis3D of the POI from this part of the itinerary. This function transmits a binary value to select or not select a POI. ValiditePoi (t, Dist, Vis3D) = l(Dist).sub.[MinDis(t),MaxDis(t)]*l(Vis3D).sub.[MinVis(t),MaxVis(t- )]"; [0065] "CoutVis: this function provides an improved index of visibility of a POI compared to the user data and to the itinerary."].
Bouget fails to disclose … positioning the coordinates of the current location of the vehicle in the three-dimensional map… ; and … wherein, in the determining the visibility, a non-zero visibility of the point of interest between the two ends of the segment is conditional upon a non-intersection between said segment and an element of the three-dimensional map. However Son teaches these limitations:
… positioning the coordinates of the current location of the vehicle in the three-dimensional map… [see at least Son [0025] "In an embodiment disclosed herein, the route guidance device determines a position where the graphic object related to route guidance is to be mapped on the digital twin 3D map, using 2D map information."; (positioning the point of interest...in the three-dimensional map) FIG. 12; [0303] "The processor 830 may position AR objects such as POIs on the digital twin 3D map, and then match 2D map information with a video (image) captured through the camera of the vehicle, thereby providing an advanced AR service based on an actual real-world image and the 2D map."; [0362] "The AR engine 830b may map a graphic object (POI information) related to route guidance on the received 3D map, and at this time, may determine a position where the graphic object is to be mapped based on 2D map information existing in the AR navigation."]; and
… wherein, in the determining the visibility, a non-zero visibility of the point of interest between the two ends of the segment is conditional upon a non-intersection between said segment and an element of the three-dimensional map [see at least Son [0357] The preset condition may include whether a current location of the vehicle is in a downtown area with many buildings, whether the vehicle is expected to enter a downtown area with many building after n minutes even if the current location of the vehicle is in an outlying area without a building that may be hidden by POI, ... whether an advertisement wall that needs to be fitted to a specific object at the current location or at a location after n minutes is designated, whether a digital twin 3D map is secured at the current location or at a location after n minutes, and whether there is a graphic object which should be exposed at a place where the vehicle is to be located after a predetermined time elapses based on 2D map information… ."]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Bouget to use … positioning the coordinates of the current location of the vehicle in the three-dimensional map… ; and … wherein, in the determining the visibility, a non-zero visibility of the point of interest between the two ends of the segment is conditional upon a non-intersection between said segment and an element of the three-dimensional map as disclosed in Son with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of safely enhancing safety of the driver and/or pedestrians. [See at least Son [0003].]
The combination of Bouget and Son fails to disclose ... representing the point of interest by a polygon having at least 3 vertices ... ; and … polygon having at least 3 vertices … . However, Haney teaches these limitations [see at least Haney [0034] "...POI boundary data may include geographic coordinates representing the POI's boundaries. POI boundary data may include geographic coordinates representing vertices at each corner of the POI. Mapping application 112 may be configured to use the vertices to render a bounded polygon that represents the POI."]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Bouget and Son to use ... representing the point of interest by a polygon having at least 3 vertices ... ; and … polygon having at least 3 vertices … as disclosed in Haney with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved location identification of defined points of interest. [See at least Haney [0040].]
The combination of Bouget, Son, and Haney fails to disclose … representing, via an open broken line, the remaining route or route portion, by interconnecting points of change in orientation of the remaining route or route portion … ; and … first end points on the broken line … . However, Horihata teaches these limitations:
… representing, via an open broken line, the remaining route or route portion, by interconnecting points of change in orientation of the remaining route or route portion … [see at least Horihata Fig. 9 (shows dotted line of path/route); Fig. 16 (shows solid interconnected line of path/route); [0145] "… shown in FIG. 16, the display start time of the second guidance content CNT2 is different from that described in the above embodiment. The HCU 100 starts display of the second guidance content CNT2 based on the estimation that the traveling direction of the vehicle A is oriented in the direction along the connection road Rc toward the successive point P2 where the second route guidance is to be executed. That is, in the third modification, when the turning point P1 and the successive point P2 are successive, the display of second guidance content CNT2 is activated under a condition that a straight-ahead travelling of the vehicle is determined after the start of right or left turn at the turning point P1."]; and
… first end points on the broken line … [see at least Horihata (broken line) Fig. 16 (shows solid interconnected line of path/route); [0145] "… shown in FIG. 16, the display start time of the second guidance content CNT2 is different from that described in the above embodiment. The HCU 100 starts display of the second guidance content CNT2 based on the estimation that the traveling direction of the vehicle A is oriented in the direction along the connection road Rc toward the successive point P2 where the second route guidance is to be executed. That is, in the third modification, when the turning point P1 and the successive point P2 are successive, the display of second guidance content CNT2 is activated under a condition that a straight-ahead travelling of the vehicle is determined after the start of right or left turn at the turning point P1."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Bouget, Son and Haney to use … representing, via an open broken line, the remaining route or route portion, by interconnecting points of change in orientation of the remaining route or route portion … ; and … first end points on the broken line … as disclosed in Horihata with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of reducing the risk of route guidance misrecognition. [See at least Horihata [0128].]
As per claim 15, the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
The combination of Bouget and Son fails to disclose … wherein said polygon includes as vertices characteristic geometrical points of an outline of said point of interest. However, Haney teaches this limitation [see at least Haney [0034] "...POI boundary data may include geographic coordinates representing the POI's boundaries. POI boundary data may include geographic coordinates representing vertices at each corner of the POI. Mapping application 112 may be configured to use the vertices to render a bounded polygon that represents the POI."]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Bouget and Son to use … wherein said polygon includes as vertices characteristic geometrical points of an outline of said point of interest as disclosed in Haney with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved location identification of defined points of interest. [See at least Haney [0040].]
As per claim 16, the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 15.
The combination of Bouget and Son fails to disclose … wherein said characteristic geometrical points includes points of change in orientation of the outline of said point of interest and/or iso-altitude points of said point of interest. However, Haney teaches this limitation [see at least Haney [0034] "...POI boundary data may include geographic coordinates representing the POI's boundaries. POI boundary data may include geographic coordinates representing vertices at each corner of the POI. Mapping application 112 may be configured to use the vertices to render a bounded polygon that represents the POI."]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Bouget and Son to use … wherein said characteristic geometrical points includes points of change in orientation of the outline of said point of interest and/or iso-altitude points of said point of interest as disclosed in Haney with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved location identification of defined points of interest. [See at least Haney [0040].]
As per claim 17, the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Bouget discloses … wherein the start points of visibility determination comprise intermediate points distributed between said points of change and/or the second ends comprise intermediate points distributed between the vertices of the polygon [see at least Bouget [0008] "the calculating of an index representative of the visibility of outstanding points established from said part of the itinerary … ."]
As per claim 18, the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Bouget discloses … wherein, in the determining the visibility of the point of interest, a zero visibility is determined for all the points of the remaining route or route portion located downstream of the start point of visibility determination for which the point of interest is located behind … [see at least Bouget [0063] "Vis3D: for a POI and a given part of the itinerary (an itinerary, a segment or a point), this function transmits an index of visibility of the POI from a part of the itinerary. The real value transmitted by Vis3D is between 0 and 1." [0064] "ValiditePoi: the arguments of this function are the type of a POI, the distance Dist between this POI and a part of the itinerary, and the index of visibility Vis3D of the POI from this part of the itinerary. This function transmits a binary value to select or not select a POI. ValiditePoi (t, Dist, Vis3D) = l(Dist).sub.[MinDis(t),MaxDis(t)]*l(Vis3D).sub.[MinVis(t),MaxVis(t- )]"; [0065] "CoutVis: this function provides an improved index of visibility of a POI compared to the user data and to the itinerary."]
As per claim 19, the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 18.
Bouget discloses … wherein the start point of visibility determination for which the point of interest is located behind corresponds to the first start point of visibility determination of the route for which all vector products of a vector connecting said start point to the first preceding start point by each vectors connecting said start point to each of the vertices of the point of interest are positive … [see at least Bouget [0063] "Vis3D: for a POI and a given part of the itinerary (an itinerary, a segment or a point), this function transmits an index of visibility of the POI from a part of the itinerary. The real value transmitted by Vis3D is between 0 and 1." [0064] "ValiditePoi: the arguments of this function are the type of a POI, the distance Dist between this POI and a part of the itinerary, and the index of visibility Vis3D of the POI from this part of the itinerary. This function transmits a binary value to select or not select a POI. ValiditePoi (t, Dist, Vis3D) = l(Dist).sub.[MinDis(t),MaxDis(t)]*l(Vis3D).sub.[MinVis(t),MaxVis(t- )]"; [0065] "CoutVis: this function provides an improved index of visibility of a POI compared to the user data and to the itinerary."]
As per claim 27, the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Bouget discloses … delivering information and/or generating ambience throughout or from the beginning of the determined optimal visibility window … [see at least Bouget [0013] "According yet again to an alternative, a road plan, associated with a generated itinerary, is established and includes the guiding instructions associated with a selected outstanding point. The road plan is for example registered in a document."]
As per claim 28, the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
As per claim 29, the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 28.
Bouget discloses … a motor vehicle … ; and … navigation means … [see at least Bouget [0048] "A navigation device integrated into a vehicle can be envisaged."]
As per claim 30, the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Claims 20, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouget, in view of Son, Haney, Horihata, and Yamaguchi (Publication US 2009/0138210 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Yamaguchi”.)
As per claim 20, the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
The combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata fails to disclose … wherein the navigation information comprises contextual visibility information that is dependent on local meteorological conditions and/or external light levels. However, Yamaguchi teaches this limitation [see at least Yamaguchi [0042] "where: "visibility range" is a maximum viewable distance due to the density of fog, ..."]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata to use … wherein the navigation information comprises contextual visibility information that is dependent on local meteorological conditions and/or external light levels as disclosed in Yamaguchi with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving reliability of light detection for visibility analysis. [See at least Yamaguchi [0050].]
As per claim 21, the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, Horihata, and Yamaguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 20.
The combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata fails to disclose … further comprising determining a maximum contextual visibility distance depending on the contextual visibility information. However, Yamaguchi teaches this limitation [see at least Yamaguchi [0042] "where: "visibility range" is a maximum viewable distance due to the density of fog, ..."]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata to use … further comprising determining a maximum contextual visibility distance depending on the contextual visibility information as disclosed in Yamaguchi with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving reliability of light detection for visibility analysis. [See at least Yamaguchi [0050].]
As per claim 24, the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, Horihata, and Yamaguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 21.
Bouget discloses … determining the visibility of the point of interest, determination of non-zero visibility of the point of interest between the two ends of the segment … [see at least Bouget [0063] "Vis3D: for a POI and a given part of the itinerary (an itinerary, a segment or a point), this function transmits an index of visibility of the POI from a part of the itinerary. The real value transmitted by Vis3D is between 0 and 1." [0064] "ValiditePoi: the arguments of this function are the type of a POI, the distance Dist between this POI and a part of the itinerary, and the index of visibility Vis3D of the POI from this part of the itinerary. This function transmits a binary value to select or not select a POI.]
The combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata fails to disclose … wherein, in the determining the visibility of the point of interest, determination of non-zero visibility of the point of interest between the two ends of the segment is also conditional upon a length of said segment being less than the predetermined maximum contextual visibility distance. However, Yamaguchi teaches this limitation [see at least Yamaguchi [0042] "where: "visibility range" is a maximum viewable distance due to the density of fog, ... ."]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata to use … wherein, in the determining the visibility of the point of interest, determination of non-zero visibility of the point of interest between the two ends of the segment is also conditional upon a length of said segment being less than the predetermined maximum contextual visibility distance as disclosed in Yamaguchi with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving reliability of light detection for visibility analysis. [See at least Yamaguchi [0050].]
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouget, in view of Son, Haney, Horihata, Yamaguchi, and Tomaru, et al. (Publication US 2014/0375638 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Tomaru”.)
As per claim 22, the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, Horihata, and Yamaguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 21.
Bouget discloses … further comprising a sub-step of determining a distance between each start point and each … point of interest [see at least Bouget [0063] "Vis3D: for a POI and a given part of the itinerary (an itinerary, a segment or a point), this function transmits an index of visibility of the POI from a part of the itinerary. The real value transmitted by Vis3D is between 0 and 1." [0064] "ValiditePoi: the arguments of this function are the type of a POI, the distance Dist between this POI and a part of the itinerary, and the index of visibility Vis3D of the POI from this part of the itinerary. This function transmits a binary value to select or not select a POI.],
wherein the tracing comprises tracing segments only of length less than or equal to the predetermined … visibility distance [see at least Bouget [0012] "According to another alternative, the calculation of the index of visibility takes into account the parameters chosen from the set comprising … a minimum distance between him and the outstanding point… ."], and
wherein, in the determining the visibility of the point of interest, the visibility is determined to be zero between said start point and said … point of interest when the distance separating them is greater than the predetermined maximum contextual visibility distance [see at least Bouget [0063] "Vis3D: for a POI and a given part of the itinerary (an itinerary, a segment or a point), this function transmits an index of visibility of the POI from a part of the itinerary. The real value transmitted by Vis3D is between 0 and 1." [0064] "ValiditePoi: the arguments of this function are the type of a POI, the distance Dist between this POI and a part of the itinerary, and the index of visibility Vis3D of the POI from this part of the itinerary. This function transmits a binary value to select or not select a POI.].
The combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata, fails to disclose … maximum contextual visibility distance … ; and … predetermined maximum contextual visibility distance … . However, Yamaguchi teaches these limitations [see at least Yamaguchi [0042] "where: "visibility range" is a maximum viewable distance due to the density of fog, ... ."]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata, to use … maximum contextual visibility distance … ; and … predetermined maximum contextual visibility distance … as disclosed in Yamaguchi with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving reliability of light detection for visibility analysis. [See at least Yamaguchi [0050].]
The combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, Horihata, and Yamaguchi fails to disclose … each of the vertices of the point of interest … ; and … vertex of the point of interest … . However Tomaru teaches this limitation [see at least Tomaru [0084] "...as shown in FIG. 12, there is a case in which the two determination object vertices D1 and D2 of a facility D are hidden behind a topographical feature X, but a part of the facility D is not hidden behind the topographical feature and can be recognized visually. In order to support such a case, in addition to the two vertices at the both ends of the upper side of the rectangular polygon of the facility model, a determination target point, such as a middle point on the upper side, can be disposed on the upper side, the map display device can be constructed in such a way as to determine whether or not the facility model is hidden behind the topographical model by using the three points on the upper side of the rectangular polygon."]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, Horihata, and Yamaguchi to use … each of the vertices of the point of interest … ; and … vertex of the point of interest … as disclosed in Tomaru with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved determination of facilities or points of interest surrounding a navigation device. [See at least Tomaru [0084].]
As per claim 23, the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, Horihata, Yamaguchi, and Tomaru as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 22.
Bouget discloses … determining the visibility of the point of interest, determination of non-zero visibility of the point of interest between the two ends of the segment … [see at least Bouget [0063] "Vis3D: for a POI and a given part of the itinerary (an itinerary, a segment or a point), this function transmits an index of visibility of the POI from a part of the itinerary. The real value transmitted by Vis3D is between 0 and 1." [0064] "ValiditePoi: the arguments of this function are the type of a POI, the distance Dist between this POI and a part of the itinerary, and the index of visibility Vis3D of the POI from this part of the itinerary. This function transmits a binary value to select or not select a POI.]
The combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata fails to disclose … wherein, in the determining the visibility of the point of interest, determination of non-zero visibility of the point of interest between the two ends of the segment is also conditional upon a length of said segment being less than the predetermined maximum contextual visibility distance. However, Yamaguchi teaches this limitation [see at least Yamaguchi [0042] "where: "visibility range" is a maximum viewable distance due to the density of fog, ... ."]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Bouget, Son, Haney, and Horihata to use … wherein, in the determining the visibility of the point of interest, determination of non-zero visibility of the point of interest between the two ends of the segment is also conditional upon a length of said segment being less than the predetermined maximum contextual visibility distance as disclosed in Yamaguchi with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving reliability of light detection for visibility analysis. [See at least Yamaguchi [0050].]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and the outstanding 35 USC 101 rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668