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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 03/16/2026. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-5 have been amended. Claims 6-10 have been added. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/16/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has explained how the invention overcomes a specific problem and integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection appear to be directed solely to the amended subject matter which have been considered and addressed as detailed below under Claim Rejections.
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.
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(s) 1-4 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito (JP 5611081 B2) in view of Tastypie (https://web.archive.org/web/20211028035256/https://paolodalena.github.io/tastypie/articles/available_templates.html, accessed via Wayback Machine snapshot on 10/28/2021).
Regarding claim 1, Naito teaches a map display device (par. 13 and Fig. 1, navigation device 1) comprising;
a display (par. 13 and Fig. 1, display 20);
and one or more processors (par. 13 and Fig. 1, CPU 21) configured to cause the display to display, on a map on the display, a plurality of icons, each of the plurality of icons respectively representing a position of each of a plurality of ports operated for a rental business of moving bodies (par. 63 and Fig. 11, icons located in a concentrated facility area in which restaurants are concentrated), wherein:
each of the ports is operated by any one of a plurality of businesses carrying out the rental business (icons represent a collection of different restaurants);
the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display the plurality of icons such that each of the plurality of icons are distinguished in accordance with a business that operates a port at a position indicated by an icon (the icons are depicted with a pie chart which indicates which restaurants are in each concentrated facility area);
the one or more processors are configured to, when two or more ports out of the ports are established in a same area, to cause the display to display a representative icon representing the two or more ports on the map, in place of two or more icons each representing the two or more ports established in the same area out of the plurality of icons (the pie chart shows there are multiple restaurants in the concentrated facility area);
the representative icon represents two or more businesses of the plurality of businesses operating the two or more ports in a manner that the two or more businesses are distinguishable from each other (the pie chart shows the makeup of different restaurants);
Naito fails to explicitly teach a plurality of icons respectively representing positions of a plurality of ports operated for a rental business of moving bodies. Naito instead teaches a plurality of icons respectively representing positions of a plurality of restaurant cuisines (Japanese, Western, and Chinese). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that Naito could be used for rental businesses instead of restaurants. Naito relates to “a navigation apparatus for presenting area information to a user, the area information relating to a dense facility area in which a predetermined number or more of facilities of the same type are present withing a predetermined area range as an upper limit” (par. 1), and simply uses restaurants as an example. It would be obvious that Naito’s device would reasonably be used for any kind of facility a user may want to search for on a navigation app, including rental businesses.
Naito’s pie chart icons are for restaurant cuisines instead of individual restaurants. However, another embodiment of Naito uses individual facilities (see Fig. 9, with list 803). It would have been obvious that a pie chart could be used with individual restaurants instead of restaurant cuisines. Proportional symbol maps are not a novel idea. Such maps are already well known in the art, as seen in the Maptitude figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
714
1177
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious that Naito could be used for a plurality of ports operated for a rental business of moving bodies.
Naito also fails to explicitly teach the representative icon represents the two or more businesses in a concentric manner. The representative icons are instead in the form of a pie chart (see Fig. 11).
However, concentric representations of ratios such as sunburst diagrams and nested donut charts are well known alternatives to pie charts. Tastypie teaches alternative representations of pie charts which could be considered concentric (see dart1, eye1, and watermelon1 graphs below).
PNG
media_image2.png
454
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
433
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
453
515
media_image4.png
Greyscale
These charts allow for alternate ways to represent ratio data in a way that is visually pleasing to the user. Naito’s pie carts are obviously used to indicate which restaurants are in each concentrated facility area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that Naito’s pie charts could have been replaced by one of Tastypie’s concentric charts in order to represent the ratio of restaurants, as both charts would predictably accomplish the same thing.
Examiner would also like to note that Masuo (US 20040059242 A1) (Fig. 17), Chachek (US 20230118119 A1) (Fig. 10), and Normandin (US 20170201428 A1) (Fig. 2) are alternative examples of concentric icons.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Naito in view of Tastypie teaches the map display device according to claim 1. Naito further teaches the two or more businesses are respectively associated with two or more colors; and the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display the representative icon so as to include two or more regions respectively represented by the two or more colors (see Fig. 11, each cuisine is represented by a different pattern).
Regarding claim 3, Naito teaches the map display device according to claim 2. Naito further teaches with respect to each of the two or more regions, the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display an area of each of the two or more regions proportional to a total number of ports operated in the area by the corresponding business (Fig. 11, the pie charts show the ratio of cuisines).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Naito in view of Tastypie teaches the map display device according to claim 3. Naito fails to teach the one or more processor are configured to cause the display to display the representative icon so as to include two or more circles laid out concentrically; and the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display a region of the representative icon represented by a color associated with a top business operating the greatest total number of the ports operated in the area, among the two or more businesses, to be a center region of the representative icon represented as an innermost circle encircled by one or more annuli.
However, Tastypie teaches the one or more processor are configured to cause the display to display the representative icon so as to include two or more circles laid out concentrically (see eye1 and watermelon1 graphs above in the rejection for claim 1);
Both Naito and Tastypie fail to explicitly teach the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display a region of the representative icon represented by a color associated with a top business operating the greatest total number of the ports operated in the area, among the two or more businesses, to be a center region of the representative icon represented as an innermost circle encircled by one or more annuli. Tastypie simply provides the templates for these pie chart designs, but makes no mention of what data should be placed where. Tastypie does teach that the graphs are color-coded, so each business would be represented by a color associated with that specific business.
It could be argued that it would have been obvious that the most important data should be placed in the center. In the case of two businesses with one business being designated the top business, Tastypie provides a tool that would allow the top business to either be the innermost circle or the annulus. It could be reasonably assumed that placing the top business in the center would make it more visually recognizable. Furthermore, we can see that many other concentric graphs tend to place the most important data in the center (see Salas (US 20150310074 A1) Fig. 9, which teaches displaying hierarchical relationships by placing the most powerful individual in the center). Placing the most important business in the center would have been obvious to try, which the courts have found to be when “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Naito in view of Tastypie teaches the map display device according to claim 1. Naito fails to teach the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display the representative icon with a representation of a first business of the two or more businesses being a circle; the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display the representative icon with a representation of a second business of the two or more businesses being an annulus surrounding the circle.
However, Tastypie teaches the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display the representative icon with a representation of a first business of the two or more businesses being a circle; the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display the representative icon with a representation of a second business of the two or more businesses being an annulus surrounding the circle (see eye1 and watermelon1 graphs above in the rejection for claim 1).
These charts allow for alternate ways to represent ratio data in a way that is visually pleasing to the user. Naito’s pie carts are obviously used to indicate which restaurants are in each concentrated facility area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that Naito’s pie charts could have been replaced by one of Tastypie’s concentric charts in order to represent the ratio of restaurants, as both charts would predictably accomplish the same thing.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Naito in view of Tastypie teaches the map display device according to claim 6. Both Naito and Tastypie fail to explicitly teach the one or more processors are configured to designate a top business of the plurality of businesses that operates a greatest total number of the ports in the same area as the first business. Tastypie simply provides the templates for these pie chart designs, but makes no mention of what data should be placed where.
It could be argued that it would have been obvious that the most important data should be placed in the center. In the case of two businesses with one business being designated the top business, Tastypie provides a tool that would allow the top business to either be the innermost circle or the annulus. It could be reasonably assumed that placing the top business in the center would make it more visually recognizable. Furthermore, we can see that many other concentric graphs tend to place the most important data in the center (see Salas (US 20150310074 A1) Fig. 9, which teaches displaying hierarchical relationships by placing the most powerful individual in the center). Placing the most important business in the center would have been obvious to try, which the courts have found to be when “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Naito in view of Tastypie teaches the map display device according to claim 7. Naito fails to teach the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display the representative icon such that an area of the circle and an area of the annulus are proportional to the number of the ports operated by the businesses respectively represented by the circle and the annulus. Naito instead only teaches that the representative icons are in the form of pie graphs, which each piece of the pie being proportional to the number of restaurants of that type.
However, Naito teaches the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display the representative icon such that an area of the circle and an area of the annulus are proportional to the number of the ports operated by the businesses respectively represented by the circle and the annulus (see eye1 and watermelon1 graphs).
Regarding claim 9, Naito teaches a map display device (par. 13 and Fig. 1, navigation device 1) comprising:
a display (par. 13 and Fig. 1, display 20);
and one or more processors (par. 13 and Fig. 1, CPU 21) configured to:
determine a display area of a map displayed on the display (par. 10, “the display unit displaying the map”);
determine a position of each of a plurality of ports (Fig. 3, facilities 303b) operated for a rental business of moving bodies corresponding to the display area of the map (Fig. 3, reference cell 301 displays the locations of multiple facilities 303b);
cause the display to display a representative icon, the representative icon being representative of a group of ports of the plurality of ports (Fig. 4 symbol image 401, or alternate embodiment which uses a pie chart instead in Fig. 11), the group of ports being located in a grouping region of the display area of the map (the symbol image 401 in Fig. 4 is positioned at the representative position 305 in Fig. 3; par. 37, “the symbol image 401 representing the facility dense area on the map and the facility dense area are included”);
and cause the display to display an individual port icon representative of an individual port of the plurality of ports located outside of the grouping region (symbol images 402 in Fig. 4 represent the individual facilities 303a in Fig. 3);
wherein: each of the plurality of ports is operated by any one of a plurality of businesses carrying out the rental business (icons represent a collection of different restaurants);
a first grouping of the group of ports located in the grouping region is operated by a first business of the plurality of businesses (Fig. 11, restaurants are categorized either as Japanese, Western, or Chinese);
a second grouping of the group of ports located in the grouping region is operated by a second business of the plurality of businesses (Fig. 11, restaurants are categorized either as Japanese, Western, or Chinese);
the first grouping is larger than the second grouping (Fig. 11, the pie charts depict different ratios of the restaurant groups);
Naito fails to explicitly teach a plurality of icons respectively representing positions of a plurality of ports operated for a rental business of moving bodies. Naito instead teaches a plurality of icons respectively representing positions of a plurality of restaurant cuisines (Japanese, Western, and Chinese). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that Naito could be used for rental businesses instead of restaurants. Naito relates to “a navigation apparatus for presenting area information to a user, the area information relating to a dense facility area in which a predetermined number or more of facilities of the same type are present withing a predetermined area range as an upper limit” (par. 1), and simply uses restaurants as an example. It would be obvious that Naito’s device would reasonably be used for any kind of facility a user may want to search for on a navigation app, including rental businesses.
Naito’s pie chart icons are for restaurant cuisines instead of individual restaurants. However, another embodiment of Naito uses individual facilities (see Fig. 9, with list 803). It would have been obvious that a pie chart could be used with individual restaurants instead of restaurant cuisines. Proportional symbol maps are not a novel idea. Such maps are already well known in the art, as seen in the figure above in the rejection for claim 1.
It would have been obvious that Naito could be used for a plurality of ports operated for a rental business of moving bodies.
Naito also fails to explicitly teach the representative icon represents the two or more businesses in a concentric manner. The representative icons are instead in the form of a pie chart (see Fig. 11).
However, concentric representations of ratios such as sunburst diagrams and nested donut charts are well known alternatives to pie charts. Tastypie teaches alternative representations of pie charts which could be considered concentric (see dart1, eye1, and watermelon1 graphs above in the rejection for claim 1).
These charts allow for alternate ways to represent ratio data in a way that is visually pleasing to the user. Naito’s pie carts are obviously used to indicate which restaurants are in each concentrated facility area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that Naito’s pie charts could have been replaced by one of Tastypie’s concentric charts in order to represent the ratio of restaurants, as both charts would predictably accomplish the same thing.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Naito in view of Tastypie teaches the map display device according to claim 9. Naito fails to teach the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display the representative icon such that an area of the circle and an area of the annulus are respectively proportional to a size of the first grouping and a size of the second grouping.
However, Tastypie teaches the display to display the representative icon such that an area of the circle and an area of the annulus are respectively proportional to a size of the first grouping and a size of the second grouping (see eye1 and watermelon1 graphs above in the rejection for claim 1).
These charts allow for alternate ways to represent ratio data in a way that is visually pleasing to the user. Naito’s pie carts are obviously used to indicate which restaurants are in each concentrated facility area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that Naito’s pie charts could have been replaced by one of Tastypie’s concentric charts in order to represent the ratio of restaurants, as both charts would predictably accomplish the same thing.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito in view of Tastypie, and further in view of Caliper (U.S. taco chain restaurants - maptitude infographic (2023) Maptitude Map: U.S. Taco Chain Restaurants. Available at: https://www.caliper.com/featured-maps/maptitude-taco-chain-map.html?srsltid=AfmBOorHop96OgvzgpV3sgyieyP9kvoOu7tC8T08GWIwHNvKbrxQsgKO (Accessed: 02 December 2025).) and Wako (US 20090144660 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Naito in view of Tastypie teaches map display device according to claim 4. Naito fails to teach the color representing the center region is a corporate color of the top business; and the center region includes a logo of the top business.
However, it would have been obvious to use the corporate color and logo for the most prevalent business, as both of these features are already well known in the art.
Caliper teaches the color representing the center region is a corporate color of the top business (see the Maptitude figure above in the rejection for claim 1, the colors correspond to the corporate color for each taco restaurant).
Wako teaches the center region includes a logo of the top business (Fig. 1A, corporate logos).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Naito to incorporate the teachings of Caliper and Wako. These features would obviously make it easier for the user to read the map and determine which facilities are there, and are already common and well-known in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Masuo (US 20040059242 A1) (Fig. 17), Chachek (US 20230118119 A1) (Fig. 10), and Normandin (US 20170201428 A1) (Fig. 2) teach concentric icons
Salas (US 20150310074 A1) (Fig. 9), teaches displaying hierarchical relationships by placing the most powerful individual in the center
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights