DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Priority
The present application’s priority under Provisional US Application Number 63/471,899 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 14, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9 and 18: “person” should read personal.
Claim 14: missing comma after “claim 13”.
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.
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “a user mobile device position unit”, a historical marker content transmission unit” in claim 10.
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 10
“a user mobile device position unit”
“a historical marker content transmission unit”
Accompanying structure in Specification: [0056]-[0057].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 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. The limitation “vehicles having different vehicle damage regions, the vehicle damage information comprising images of vehicle damage information obtained from a depth and dimension measuring device” is not described in further detail in the specification and appears to be part of a different patent application.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are dependent on claims 1, 10, and 19 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under similar reasoning as claims 1, 10, and 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 10 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a Process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Example: iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721.
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
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See claim language below:
A method for processing and delivering historical marker content requests from a subscribed user, comprising:
identification by a user mobile device position unit that identifies when a mobile device of a user enters a virtual boundary surrounding a first historical marker having a location corresponding to global positioning system (GPS) coordinates, the user mobile device position unit acquiring mobile user device location information for a plurality of uniquely identified users;
transmitting via a historical marker content transmission unit a first historical marker content associated with a first historical marker according to an acceptance message sent to the historical content marker request platform and second historical marker content associated with the first historical marker according to predefined parameters selected by the user and stored in a database associated with historical marker content request processing platform; and
compiling via a mapping module a first set of directions for the user to travel from the user location to the first marker location according to the GPS coordinates of the user location and the first marker, the historical marker content request processing platform transmitting to the user the first set of directions; and
compiling via the mapping module a second set of directions for the user to travel from the user location to a second marker location according to the GPS coordinates of the user location and the second marker, the historical marker content request processing platform transmitting to the user the second set of direction.
The Process in claim 10, specifically the limitations bolded above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of identifying when a mobile device enters a virtual boundary surrounding a historical maker and compiling a first and second set of directions to a first and a second historical marker. This is equivalent to visually identifying when a person holding a smartphone walks to approximately 10 feet away from a first historical marker, determining directions for the person to follow from the person’s starting location to the first marker, and determining directions for the person to follow from the first marker to the second marker, which could be relatively close to the first marker, such as across a shared field.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements, underlined above, that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element 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.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element 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;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 10 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The step of “the user mobile device position unit acquiring mobile user device location information…” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Further, the limitation “transmitting via a historical marker content transmission unit…” is also recited at a high level of generality and is merely transmitting data which is a form of post solutions actions (extra solution activity).
The “user mobile device position unit” and “mapping module” merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The units are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the identification and compiling steps.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 10 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well- understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Mere data communication steps that can be performed entirely on any one or more generic computer/-s have also been previously identified by the courts as an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception): (A) Receiving and/or transmitting data is considered to be well-understood, routine, or conventional at least as evidenced by MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i) "Receiving or transmitting data over a network", and (iv) "Storing and retrieving information in memory" and (B) Comparing the received data to other data is considered to be well-understood, routine or conventional at least as evidenced by MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)(ii) "Performing repetitive calculations".
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 10 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 10 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Additionally, claims 1-9, 11-20:
fall within one of the statutory categories (claims 1-9, 19-20: machine; claims 11-18: process)
directed toward an abstract idea (Mental Process),
do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and
do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is clear that Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caughey (US 20100257234 A1) in view of Boston et al. (US 20200200556 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Caughey teach A historical marker content request processing platform, comprising:
a plurality of uniquely identified users (see at least FIG. 3: communication devices 280, 290, 302; [0012]: “a plurality of different users, each one of the users being associated uniquely with a different mobile communications device that is in wireless communication with a host system via a communications network”);
vehicles having different vehicle damage regions, the vehicle damage information comprising images of vehicle damage information obtained from a depth and dimension measuring device;
a historical marker content transmission unit (see at least FIG. 3: knowledge server 304) for transmitting first historical marker (see at least [0034]: “ the term "point of interest" also applies to … historical sites”; [0039]: “a specific point of interest (POI), such as for instance an artifact”) content (see at least [0039]: “a first fragment of the plurality of fragments contains a cursory overview of the artifact”) associated with a first historical marker according to an acceptance message (see at least [0049]: “a record is retrieved from electronic Archive Database 312 in response to the user providing a POI identifier that is associated with a particular point of interest”) sent to the historical content marker request platform and second historical marker (see at least [0043]: “the next auxiliary fragment in a sequence for the artifact is retrieved”) content associated with the first historical marker according to predefined parameters (see at least [0043]: “the active sequence is determined in dependence upon … a preference indicator contained in a profile record of the user”) selected by the user (see at least [0053]: “with a recommended point of interest, the Voice Service 310 optionally injects an audio fragment that prompts the user to indicate, via a simple key press or voice command, whether they thought the recommendation was helpful. In this manner, the preference profile for a user can be fine-tuned over time.”) and stored in a database (see at least FIG. 3: databases 312, 314, 316, history database 318, 320, 330; [0097]: “Although the various databases are shown separately in FIG. 3, it is to be understood that optionally all of the databases are stored in a same memory device of the host system knowledge server”) associated with historical marker content request processing platform; and
a mapping module (see at least FIG. 3: knowledge server 304) associated with the historical marker content request processing platform configured to
compile a first set of directions (see at least [0033]: “the Voice Service 210 queries an electronic Tour Database 214 for the next POI identifier in the tour, and retrieves location information for both the current point of interest and the next point of interest from an electronic Location Database 216. This information can then be used to generate or retrieve audio content that instructs the user as to how they may locate the next point of interest”) for the user to travel from the user location to the first marker location, the historical marker content request processing platform transmitting to the user the first set of directions;
compile a second set of directions (see at least [0045]: “generate instructions to the user as to where they can find the next point of interest”) *Examiner’s interpretation: process shown in FIG. 4 of Caughey and generation of audio instructions for navigating to next POI described in [0033] is repeatable for multiple POIs.* for the user to travel from the user location to a second marker location (see at least [0043]: “the artifact has associated with it a plurality of possible fragments sequences, X, Y and Z, and each one of the fragment sequences has associated with it a plurality of fragments”), the historical marker content request processing platform transmitting to the user the second set of direction.
However, Caughey does not explicitly teach a processor having an operating system and programmed with executable computer readable code that when executed is programmed to function as:
a user mobile device position unit that identifies when a mobile device of a user enters a virtual boundary surrounding a first historical marker having a location corresponding to global positioning system (GPS) coordinates, the user mobile device position unit acquiring mobile user device location information for;
according to the GPS coordinates of the user location and the first marker;
according to the GPS coordinates of the user location and the second marker.
Boston teach a processor (see at least FIG. 6: processors 602) having an operating system and programmed with executable computer readable code that when executed is programmed to function (see at least [0067]: “computer-executable code, instructions, or the like that may be loadable into the memory 604 and executable by the processor(s) 602 to cause the processor(s) 602 to perform or initiate various operations.”) as:
a user mobile device position unit (see at least [0041]: “a user device (e.g., a smartphone) may also have GPS capability that may be used in conjunction with the GPS receiver”) that identifies when a mobile device of a user enters a virtual boundary surrounding (see at least [0056]: “determining information to be provided to the user when the user is within a distance of the at least one landmark”; [0018]: “triggered based on a location of the users and/or a proximity to such landmarks and points-of-interest”) a first historical marker having a location corresponding to global positioning system (GPS) coordinates (see at least [0040]: “the GPS-based chipset/component may execute software that includes the locations of various landmarks”), the user mobile device position unit acquiring mobile user device location information (see at least [0056]: “a query may be received from one or more users”) for a plurality of uniquely identified users;
compile a first set of directions (see at least [0029]: “determine a route from a current location to a first location of the first landmark option.”) for the user to travel from the user location to the first marker location according to the GPS coordinates of the user location and the first marker;
compile a second set of directions for the user to travel from the user location to a second marker location (see at least [0033]: “The computer processor(s) … and may cause the vehicle to autonomously drive from the first location to the second location of the next landmark on the tour.”) according to the GPS coordinates of the user location and the second marker.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Caughey to incorporate the teachings of Boston to identify locations using GPS and to trigger an information transfer upon traveling to within a threshold distance of a historical marker. Doing so would “increase the accuracy of calculating the vehicle’s 110 geographical position”, as recognized by Boston in paragraph [0041]. Furthermore, doing so provides landmark information to users who “want to learn about the area they are traveling through”, as recognized by Boston in paragraph [0022].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Caughey and Boston teach The historical marker content request processing platform of claim 1.
Caughey further teaches wherein the first historical marker content comprises a first category (see at least [0039]: “a first fragment of the plurality of fragments contains a cursory overview of the artifact”) of information pertaining to the first historical marker.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Caughey and Boston teach The historical marker content request processing platform of claim 2.
Caughey further teaches wherein the second historical marker content comprises a second category (see at least [0039]: “a second fragment of the plurality of fragments offers increasing detail or auxiliary information relating to the artifact”) of information pertaining to the first historical marker.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Caughey and Boston teach The historical marker content request processing platform of claim 3.
Caughey further teaches wherein the second historical marker content comprises a first category (see at least [0043]: “the artifact has associated with it a plurality of possible fragments sequences, X, Y and Z, and each one of the fragment sequences has associated with it a plurality of fragments, including a common fragment (the cursory overview)”) of information pertaining to the second (FIG. 4 step 406: “retrieve next fragment”) historical marker.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Caughey and Boston teach The historical marker content request processing platform of claim 4.
Caughey further teaches wherein the second historical marker content comprises a second category (see at least [0043]: “the artifact has associated with it a plurality of possible fragments sequences, X, Y and Z, and each one of the fragment sequences has associated with it a plurality of fragments, including … at least one additional fragment”) of information pertaining to the second (see at least FIG. 4 step 406: “retrieve next fragment”) historical marker.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Caughey and Boston teach The historical marker content request processing platform of claim 2.
Caughey further teaches wherein the first historical marker content comprises audio (see at least [0025]: “Media generated by the Knowledge Server 110, typically in the form of audio content”) and textual (see at least [0084]: “the Voice Service 310 retrieving custom text from the electronic Archive Database 312”) and textual information pertaining to the first historical marker and stored in a content database (see at least FIG. 3: history database 318) associated with a historical marker content server (see at least FIG. 3: knowledge server 304).
Boston further teaches wherein the second historical marker content comprises visual (see at least [0020]: “information related to the landmarks and locations of interest may be presented at one or more displays”) information pertaining to the first historical marker.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Caughey to incorporate the teachings of Boston to provide visual information. Doing so would provide landmark information to users who “want to learn about the area they are traveling through”, as recognized by Boston in paragraph [0022].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Caughey and Boston teach The historical marker content request processing platform of claim 3.
Caughey further teaches wherein the second historical marker content comprises visual, audio (see at least [0025]: “Media generated by the Knowledge Server 110, typically in the form of audio content”), and textual (see at least [0084]: “the Voice Service 310 retrieving custom text from the electronic Archive Database 312”) information pertaining to the first historical marker and stored in and transmitted to a third party historical marker content server (see at least FIG. 3: knowledge server 304) having content sourced to a third party.
Boston further teaches wherein the second historical marker content comprises visual (see at least [0020]: “information related to the landmarks and locations of interest may be presented at one or more displays”) information pertaining to the first historical marker;
a third party historical marker content server (see at least FIG. 6: “third-party servers 644 (e.g., servers that store tour data, map data servers, etc.)”) having content sourced to a third party.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Caughey to incorporate the teachings of Boston to provide visual information. Doing so would provide landmark information to users who “want to learn about the area they are traveling through”, as recognized by Boston in paragraph [0022].
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Caughey and Boston teach The historical marker content request processing platform of claim 1.
Caughey further teaches wherein the mobile user device in communication with the historical marker content request processing platform comprises a phone (see at least FIG. 1: mobile phone 102) having a processor and a dedicated historical marker content platform application (see at least [0068]: “tour creation is done through non-web application”).
Boston further teaches a smart phone (see at least FIG. 6: user device 650; [0041]: “a user device (e.g., a smartphone)”) having a processor (see at least FIG. 6: processor 652) and a dedicated historical marker content platform application (see at least FIG. 6, [0084]: “the autonomous vehicle application 656 may be a mobile application executable by the processor 652 that can be used to present options and/or receive user inputs of information related to … tour presentation and selection”) stored in associated non-volatile memory (see at least FIG. 6: memory device 654; [0083]: “The memory 654 may include … non-volatile memory”) of the smart phone.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Caughey to incorporate the teachings of Boston to use a smartphone. Doing so would “increase the accuracy of calculating the vehicle’s 110 geographical position”, as recognized by Boston in paragraph [0041].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Caughey and Boston teach The historical marker content request processing platform of claim 1.
Caughey further teaches wherein the mobile user device in communication with the historical marker content request processing platform comprises a computer (see at least FIG. 1: mobile phone 102) having a dedicated historical marker content platform application (see at least [0068]: “tour creation is done through non-web application”).
Boston further teaches a person computer (see at least FIG. 6: user device 650; [0036]: “the users may have user devices (e.g., … laptops”) having a processor (see at least FIG. 6: processor 652) and a dedicated historical marker content platform application (see at least FIG. 6, [0084]: “the autonomous vehicle application 656 may be a mobile application executable by the processor 652 that can be used to present options and/or receive user inputs of information related to … tour presentation and selection”) stored in associated non-volatile memory (see at least FIG. 6: memory device 654; [0083]: “The memory 654 may include … non-volatile memory”) of the personal computer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Caughey to incorporate the teachings of Boston to use a personal computer. Doing so would “increase the accuracy of calculating the vehicle’s 110 geographical position”, as recognized by Boston in paragraph [0041].
Regarding claim 10, Caughey teach A method for processing and delivering historical marker content requests from a subscribed user (see at least [0028]: “the user”), comprising:
a plurality of uniquely identified users (see at least FIG. 3: communication devices 280, 290, 302; [0012]: “a plurality of different users, each one of the users being associated uniquely with a different mobile communications device that is in wireless communication with a host system via a communications network”);
vehicles having different vehicle damage regions, the vehicle damage information comprising images of vehicle damage information obtained from a depth and dimension measuring device;
transmitting via a historical marker content transmission unit (see at least FIG. 3: knowledge server 304) a first historical marker (see at least [0034]: “ the term "point of interest" also applies to … historical sites”; [0039]: “a specific point of interest (POI), such as for instance an artifact”) content (see at least [0039]: “a first fragment of the plurality of fragments contains a cursory overview of the artifact”) associated with a first historical marker according to an acceptance message (see at least [0049]: “a record is retrieved from electronic Archive Database 312 in response to the user providing a POI identifier that is associated with a particular point of interest”) sent to the historical content marker request platform and second historical marker (see at least [0043]: “the next auxiliary fragment in a sequence for the artifact is retrieved”) content associated with the first historical marker according to predefined parameters (see at least [0043]: “the active sequence is determined in dependence upon … a preference indicator contained in a profile record of the user”) selected by the user (see at least [0053]: “with a recommended point of interest, the Voice Service 310 optionally injects an audio fragment that prompts the user to indicate, via a simple key press or voice command, whether they thought the recommendation was helpful. In this manner, the preference profile for a user can be fine-tuned over time.”) and stored in a database (see at least FIG. 3: databases 312, 314, 316, history database 318, 320, 330; [0097]: “Although the various databases are shown separately in FIG. 3, it is to be understood that optionally all of the databases are stored in a same memory device of the host system knowledge server”) associated with historical marker content request processing platform; and
compiling via a mapping module (see at least FIG. 3: knowledge server 304) a first set of directions (see at least [0033]: “the Voice Service 210 queries an electronic Tour Database 214 for the next POI identifier in the tour, and retrieves location information for both the current point of interest and the next point of interest from an electronic Location Database 216. This information can then be used to generate or retrieve audio content that instructs the user as to how they may locate the next point of interest”) for the user to travel from the user location to the first marker location, the historical marker content request processing platform transmitting to the user the first set of directions;
compiling via the mapping module a second set of directions (see at least [0045]: “generate instructions to the user as to where they can find the next point of interest”) *Examiner’s interpretation: process shown in FIG. 4 of Caughey and generation of audio instructions for navigating to next POI described in [0033] is repeatable for multiple POIs.* for the user to travel from the user location to a second marker location (see at least [0043]: “the artifact has associated with it a plurality of possible fragments sequences, X, Y and Z, and each one of the fragment sequences has associated with it a plurality of fragments”), the historical marker content request processing platform transmitting to the user the second set of direction.
However, Caughey does not explicitly teach identification by a user mobile device position unit that identifies when a mobile device of a user enters a virtual boundary surrounding a first historical marker having a location corresponding to global positioning system (GPS) coordinates the user mobile device position unit acquiring mobile user device location information;
according to the GPS coordinates of the user location and the first marker;
according to the GPS coordinates of the user location and the second marker.
Boston teach identification by a user mobile device position unit (see at least [0041]: “a user device (e.g., a smartphone) may also have GPS capability that may be used in conjunction with the GPS receiver”) that identifies when a mobile device of a user enters a virtual boundary surrounding (see at least [0056]: “determining information to be provided to the user when the user is within a distance of the at least one landmark”; [0018]: “triggered based on a location of the users and/or a proximity to such landmarks and points-of-interest”) a first historical marker having a location corresponding to global positioning system (GPS) coordinates (see at least [0040]: “the GPS-based chipset/component may execute software that includes the locations of various landmarks”), the user mobile device position unit acquiring mobile user device location information (see at least [0056]: “a query may be received from one or more users”) for a plurality of uniquely identified users;
compiling via a mapping module (see at least FIG. 6: routing module 626) a first set of directions (see at least [0029]: “determine a route from a current location to a first location of the first landmark option.”) for the user to travel from the user location to the first marker location according to the GPS coordinates of the user location and the first marker;
compiling via the mapping module a second set of directions for the user to travel from the user location to a second marker location (see at least [0033]: “The computer processor(s) … and may cause the vehicle to autonomously drive from the first location to the second location of the next landmark on the tour.”) according to the GPS coordinates of the user location and the second marker.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Caughey to incorporate the teachings of Boston to identify locations using GPS and to trigger an information transfer upon traveling to within a threshold distance of a historical marker. Doing so would “increase the accuracy of calculating the vehicle’s 110 geographical position”, as recognized by Boston in paragraph [0041]. Furthermore, doing so provides landmark information to users who “want to learn about the area they are traveling through”, as recognized by Boston in paragraph [0022].
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Caughey and Boston teach The method for processing and delivering historical marker content requests from a subscribed user of claim 10.
Caughey further teaches wherein the first historical marker content comprises a first category (see at least [0039]: “a first fragment of the plurality of fragments contains a cursory overview of the artifact”) of information pertaining to the first historical marker.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Caughey and Boston teach The method for processing and delivering historical marker content requests from a subscribed user of claim 11.
Caughey further teaches wherein the second historical marker content comprises a second category (see at least [0039]: “a second fragment of the plurality of fragments offers increasing detail or auxiliary information relating to the artifact”) of information pertaining to the first historical marker.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Caughey and Boston teach The method for processing and delivering historical marker content requests from a subscribed user of claim 12.
Caughey further teaches wherein the second historical marker content comprises a first category (see at least [0043]: “the artifact has associated with it a plurality of possible fragments sequences, X, Y and Z, and each one of the fragment sequences has associated with it a plurality of fragments, including a common fragment (the cursory overview)”) of information pertaining to the second (see at least FIG. 4 step 406: “retrieve next fragment”) historical marker.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Caughey and Boston teach The method for processing and delivering historical marker content requests from a subscribed user of claim 13.
Caughey further teaches wherein the second historical marker content comprises a second category (see at least [0043]: “the artifact has associated with it a plurality of possible fragments sequences, X, Y and Z, and each one of the fragment sequences has associated with it a plurality of fragments, including … at least one additional fragment”) of information pertaining to the second (see at least FIG. 4 step 406: “retrieve next fragment”) historical marker.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Caughey and Boston teach The method for processing and delivering historical marker content requests from a subscribed user of claim 11.
Caughey further teaches wherein the first historical marker content comprises audio (see at least [0025]: “Media generated by the Knowledge Server 110, typically in the form of audio content”) and textual (see at least [0084]: “the Voice Service 310 retrieving custom text from the electronic Archive Database 312”) and textual information pertaining to the first historical marker and stored in a content database (see at least FIG. 3: history database 318) associated with a historical marker content server (see at least FIG. 3: knowledge server 304).
Boston further teaches wherein the second historical marker content comprises visual (see at least [0020]: “information related to the landmarks and locations of interest may be presented at one or more displays”) information pertaining to the first historical marker.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Caughey to incorporate the teachings of Boston to provide visual information. Doing so would provide landmark information to users who “want to learn about the area they are traveling through”, as recognized by Boston in paragraph [0022].
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Caughey and Boston teach The method for processing and delivering historical marker content requests from a subscribed user of claim 12.
Caughey further teaches wherein the second historical marker content comprises visual, audio (see at least [0025]: “Media generated by the Knowledge Server 110, typically in the form of audio content”), and textual (see at least [0084]: “the Voice Service 310 retrieving custom text from the electronic Archive Database 312”) information pertaining to the first historical marker and stored in and transmitted to a third party historical marker content server (see at least FIG. 3: knowledge server 304) having content sourced to a third party.
Boston further teaches wherein the second historical marker content comprises visual (see at least [0020]: “information related to the landmarks and locations of interest may be presented at one or more displays”) information pertaining to the first historical marker;
a third party historical marker content server (see at least FIG. 6: “third-party servers 644 (e.g., servers that store tour data, map data servers, etc.)”) having content sourced to a third party.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Caughey to incorporate the teachings of Boston to provide visual information. Doing so would provide landmark information to users who “want to learn about the area they are traveling through”, as recognized by Boston in paragraph [0022].
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Caughey and Boston teach The method for processing and delivering historical marker content requests from a subscribed user of claim 10.
Caughey further teaches wherein the mobile user device in communication with the historical marker content request processing platform comprises a phone (see at least FIG. 1: mobile phone 102) having a processor and a dedicated historical marker content platform application (see at least [0068]: “tour creation is done through non-web application”).
Boston further teaches a smart phone (see at least FIG. 6: user device 650; [0041]: “a user device (e.g., a smartphone)”) having a processor (see at least FIG. 6: processor 652) and a dedicated historical marker content platform application (see at least FIG. 6, [0084]: “the autonomous vehicle application 656 may be a mobile application executable by the processor 652 that can be used to present options and/or receive user inputs of information related to … tour presentation and selection”) stored in associated non-volatile memory (see at least FIG. 6: memory device 654; [0083]: “The memory 654 may include … non-volatile memory”) of the smart phone.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Caughey to incorporate the teachings of Bosto