DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 41-60 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 53 and 56-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to Claim 53, the instant specification does not contain features of “pre-loading and caching the selected candidate content items…”
In regard to Claim 56, the instant specification does not contain features “wherein transmitting data for causing the user device to present the content items occurs automatically upon detection that the map viewport has stabilized at a zero-velocity state for at least a minimum dwell time threshold.”
In regard to Claim 57, the instant specification does not contain features of “wherein calculating the shortest distance between the location of the candidate content item and the determined vector comprises converting geographic coordinates of the candidate content item and coordinates of the determined vector into container pixel values via an overlay projection framework.”
In regard to Claim 58, the instant specification does not contain features of “wherein presenting the one or more selected candidate content items comprises arranging the items within a scrollable horizontal carousel row if the determined vector indicates a primarily horizontal panning trajectory, and arranging the items within a stacked vertical list if the determined vector indicates a primarily vertical panning trajectory.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 41-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent Claims 41 and 59-60 state “receiving, by a computing system, data specifying a first reference point location in a map viewport before a user interaction and a second reference point location in the map viewport after the user interaction” (emphasis added).
However, the above limitation is not clear in view of the instant specification. For example, in paragraph [0084], the specification states “the viewport 610 presented a map portion 607A before a user interaction with the map interface 600…” That means that a user has not interacted with the map interface, while the instant claims imply before any interaction with anything altogether. The Examiner will interpret the limitation in view of the specification in that there is no initial interaction with the map.
Dependent Claims 42-58 do not remedy the above issue.
Claim 56 states “wherein transmitting data for causing the user device to present the content items occurs automatically upon detection that the map viewport has stabilized at a zero-velocity state for at least a minimum dwell time threshold.”
However, it is unclear what makes a viewport stabilized. It is also unclear what “zero-velocity state” means with regard to detecting something in the viewport. As such, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined.
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 41-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 41 and 59-60 recite limitations that are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more:
receiving, by a computing system, data specifying a first reference point location in a map viewport before a user interaction and a second reference point location in the map viewport after the user interaction – Viewing a map with different locations is something that a person can do in their mind.
determining, by the computing system, a vector representing a panning trajectory of the map viewport based on the first reference point to the second reference point – Identifying how to look at the map is something that a person can do in their mind.
identifying, by the computing system, a plurality of candidate content items for presentation within the map viewport – Identifying locations on a map is something that a person can do in their mind.
for each candidate content item:
calculating a rank score based at least in part on a location associated with the candidate content item and the shortest distance between the location of the candidate content item and the determined vector representing the panning trajectory - Ranking items based on interest and distance is something that may be performed in the mind.
determining, by the computing system, one or more selected candidate items based on the associated rank scores - Identifying places, based on a person’s criteria, near a particular place is something that may be performed in the mind.
transmitting, by the computing system, data for causing a user device to present the one or more selected contents items – Transmitting data identified via a mental process is considered insignificant extra-solution activity based at least on MPEP 2106.05(d).
The claims do not include further additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using hardware to perform the above limitation to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 42-58 further describe more details of the above identified mental processes and thus do not provide additional elements that would make them statutory under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 41-42, 47, 54-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0321402) in view of Grunick et al (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0039602).
Claims 41 and 59-60: Moore discloses a method, a system and a non-transitory computer-readable media comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, data specifying a first reference point location in a map viewport before a user interaction [0096] and a second reference point location in the map viewport after the user interaction [0099]. [See at least displaying a map before any interactions and then seeing search results on the map.]
determining, by the computing system, a vector representing a panning trajectory of the map viewport based on the first reference point to the second reference point [0329-0330]. [See at least identifying how to pan or zoom based on search results.]
identifying, by the computing system, a plurality of candidate content items for presentation within the map viewport [0329-0330]. [See at least identifying various search results.]
Moore alone does not explicitly disclose
for each candidate content item: calculating a rank score based at least in part on a location associated with the candidate content item and the shortest distance between the location of the candidate content item and the determined vector representing the panning trajectory; determining, by the computing system, one or more selected candidate items based on the associated rank scores; and transmitting, by the computing system, data for causing a user device to present the one or more selected contents items.
However, Grunick [0046, 0050] discloses at least “in a search for restaurants closest to the location of the user (see FIG. 3), the content item identifying a restaurant having the smallest distance from the user's location may have the highest relevance score.”
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Moore with Grunick. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify content of interest to a user.
Claim 42: Moore as modified discloses the method of Claim 41 above, and Moore further discloses wherein the first reference point location is a geometric center of the map viewport prior to the user interaction [0112], and the second reference point location is a geometric center of the map viewport after the user interaction [Fig. 35 #3520].
Claim 47: Moore as modified discloses the method of Claim 41 above, and Moore further discloses wherein the user interaction comprises a directional swipe gesture detected on a touch-sensitive interface of the user device [0124].
Claim 54: Moore as modified discloses the method of Claim 41 above, and Moore further discloses wherein the plurality of candidate content items comprise media items, each media item being an image item or a video item associated with a geographic point of interest [Fig. 28].
Claim 55: Moore as modified discloses the method of Claim 54 above, and Moore further discloses wherein presenting the selected one or more content items comprises rendering the media item as an interactive, coordinate-associated preview card overlaid directly on a map surface of the map viewport [Fig. 28].
Claim 56: Moore as modified discloses the method of Claim 41 above, and Moore further discloses wherein transmitting data for causing the user device to present the content items occurs automatically upon detection that the map viewport has stabilized at a zero-velocity state for at least a minimum dwell time threshold [0168].
Claim 57: Moore as modified discloses the method of Claim 41 above, and Moore further discloses wherein calculating the shortest distance between the location of the candidate content item and the determined vector comprises converting geographic coordinates of the candidate content item and coordinates of the determined vector into container pixel values via an overlay projection framework [Fig. 28].
Claim 58: Moore as modified discloses the method of Claim 41 above, and Moore further discloses wherein presenting the one or more selected candidate content items comprises arranging the items within a scrollable horizontal carousel row if the determined vector indicates a primarily horizontal panning trajectory, and arranging the items within a stacked vertical list if the determined vector indicates a primarily vertical panning trajectory [0388].
Claims 43, 48-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0321402) in view of Grunick et al (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0039602) and further in view of Beacher (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0055087).
Claim 43: Moore as modified discloses the method of Claim 41 above, but Moore alone does not explicitly disclose defining a map attention area bounded by a first parallel line and a second parallel line positioned on opposite sides of the determined vector.
However, Beacher [0035-0037] discloses providing a map view that is bounded by at least parallel lines.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Moore with Beacher. One would have been motivated to do so in order to display data in a particular stylistic manner.
Claim 48: Moore as modified discloses the method of Claim 41 above, but Moore alone does not explicitly disclose wherein calculating the rank score and determining the one or more selected candidate items is performed dynamically in real time during a continuous panning gesture before the user interaction concludes.
However, Beacher [0051-0052] discloses changing ranking when zoom or pans, rankings on the screen are adjusted.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Moore with Beacher. One would have been motivated to do so in order to display relevant content.
Claim 49: Moore as modified discloses the method of Claim 41 above, but Moore alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the user interaction is a first user interaction and the vector is a first vector, the method further comprising: receiving data specifying a third reference point location in the map viewport after a second successive user interaction; and determining a second vector representing a subsequent panning trajectory between the second reference point location and the third reference point location.
However, Beacher [0051-0052, 0058] discloses panning between different identified points.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Moore with Beacher. One would have been motivated to do so in order to display relevant content.
Claim 50: Moore as modified discloses the method of Claim 49 above, and Beacher, for the same reasons as above, further discloses superimposing the first vector over a current map portion presented in the map viewport after the second successive user interaction [0051-0052, 0058].
Claim 51: Moore as modified discloses the method of Claim 49 above, and Moore, for the same reasons as above, further discloses wherein superimposing the first vector comprises translating the first vector to pass through a geometric center of the map viewport after the second successive user interaction while maintaining an original angle of the first vector [Fig. 20].
Claim 52: Moore as modified discloses the method of Claim 49 above, and Moore, for the same reasons as above, further discloses wherein at least one of the identified candidate content items is located outside the current map viewport and within a threshold proximity to a boundary of the map viewport along a path of the determined vector [0316].
Claims 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0321402) in view of Grunick et al (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0039602) further in view of Beacher (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0055087) and further in view of Icho et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0268485).
Claim 44: Moore as modified discloses the method of Claim 43 above, but Moore alone does not explicitly disclose wherein a width of the map attention area between the first parallel line and the second parallel line is dynamically adjusted based on a scale of the map viewport.
However, Icho [Figs 9A-9C, 0037] discloses expanding the map attention area based on a particular scale. Even though Icho discloses a circle instead of a quadrilateral is considered as design choice because the end result is the expansion of the map attention area.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Moore with Icho. One would have been motivated to do so in order to display located data in a particular stylistic manner.
Claim 45: Moore as modified discloses the method of Claim 44 above, and Icho, for the same reasons as above, further discloses wherein the width of the map attention area is inversely proportional to a distance between the first reference point location and the second reference point location [Figs 9A-9C].
Claim 46: Moore as modified discloses the method of Claim 44 above, and Grunick, for the same reasons as above, further discloses wherein calculating the rank score comprises applying a priority boost factor to the candidate content items whose associated locations fall within the map attention area, wherein the priority boost factor increases as the shortest distance between the location of the candidate content item and the determined vector decreases [0046, 0050].
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0321402) in view of Grunick et al (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0039602) further in view of Beacher (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0055087) and further in view of Bowman et al (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0244095).
Claim 53: Moore as modified discloses the method of Claim 52 above, but Moore alone does not explicitly disclose pre-loading and caching the selected candidate content items located outside the current map viewport to optimize rendering speed upon a subsequent map viewport repositioning.
However, Bowman [0024] discloses caching relevant maps to be used at a later time.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Moore with Bowman. One would have been motivated to do so in order to “obviate[s] the need to entirely reconstruct the map features every time the map is panned or zoomed, thus economizing the processing resources of the device.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
