DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office Action on the merits and is responsive to the originally filed application papers. Claims filed on 11/08/2024 are being examined. Claims 1-20 are being considered and further pending examination.
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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not written in the proper form for at least beginning “Embodiments of the present disclosure provide…”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 (“a storage apparatus”) that is coupled with functional language (“to store”) 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 as follows:
”a storage apparatus configured to store one or more programs” recited in claim 10. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take “a storage apparatus” as a device for storing digital electronic information such as a tape or hard disk or equivalent based on the following excerpt(s) from the specification:
Para [00120] : “Generally, the following apparatuses may be connected to the I/O interface 505: an input apparatus 506 including, for example, a touchscreen, a touchpad, a keyboard, a mouse, a camera, a microphone, an accelerometer, and a gyroscope; an output apparatus 507 including, for example, a liquid crystal display (LCD), a speaker, and a vibrator; the storage apparatus 508 including, for example, a tape and a hard disk; and a communication apparatus 509.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-9 and 11-20 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.
The term “upper” in claims 2 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “upper” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims recites “..an upper layer of the display interface…” however it is unclear what constitutes an upper layer.
Claims 3-9 and 11-18 are dependent on claims 2 and 11 respectively and do not cure the deficiencies thereof and therefore are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 12-14 each recite “the one or more programs… further comprises one or more programs”, however it is unclear how one program could comprises more than one program.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the point location to be adjusted comprises at least one of the following: all point locations in the target area” However, ‘the point location’ is singular, therefore, it is unclear how a singular point could comprise all point locations in the target area.
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 invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Applicant’s independent claim 1 is directed toward a method. Therefore, it can be seen that it/they fall(s) within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I: Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite and abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 6 recites :
A point creation method, comprising:
displaying an area map corresponding to a target area on a display interface in response to a first trigger operation;
determining a point creation area in response to a trigger operation of a user for the area map, wherein the point creation area corresponds to at least part of the target area; and
creating a plurality of points automatically in the point creation area, and displaying the plurality of points on the area map, in response to a trigger operation for a batch creating of points.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the step “determining” encompasses a user making an observation, evaluation, or judgement, by simply determining an area in response to a trigger, for example a decision to determine a point creation area. Further, the step “creating” encompasses a user making an observation, evaluation , or judgement by a user further identifying points within the previously determined area in response to, for example, a decision to create a plurality of points. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II: Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A point creation method, comprising:
displaying an area map corresponding to a target area on a display interface in response to a first trigger operation;
determining a point creation area in response to a trigger operation of a user for the area map, wherein the point creation area corresponds to at least part of the target area; and
creating a plurality of points automatically in the point creation area, and displaying the plurality of points on the area map, in response to a trigger operation for a batch creating of points.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “displaying an area map corresponding to a target area on a display interface in response to a first trigger operation” and “displaying the plurality of points on the area map” the examiner submits these limitations are merely extra-solution activity . In particular “displaying an area map” and “displaying the plurality of points on the area map” constitutes post solution activity regarding the displaying of data.
101 Analysis - Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application the additional elements of “displaying an area map corresponding to a target area on a display interface in response to a first trigger operation” and “displaying the plurality of points on the area map” amount to no more than extra solution activity of displaying of selected data. Therefore, as a whole the claim is directed to an abstract idea insignificant extra solution activities of data selection and display.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as discussed below. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 2-9 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on claim 1, it merely adds the limitations “displaying at least two controls on an upper layer of the display interface, wherein the at least two controls correspond to an automatic point name import control and a rule-based point name generation control” and “determining name information of the plurality of automatically created points based on a trigger operation for the at least two controls” which is merely the addition of the extra solution activity of displaying of data and the addition of the abstract idea of determining name information of the points based on a trigger such as decided that each point should be named and giving each point an arbitrary name.
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on claim 2, it merely adds the limitation “in response to the automatic point name import control being triggered, importing a target document that comprises a plurality of point names to be used, to determine the name information corresponding to the plurality of created points based on the point names to be used in the target document” which is merely the addition of the extra-solution activity of data selection along with recitation of an intended use.
Regarding claim 4, which is dependent on claim 2, it merely adds the limitations “in response to the rule-based point name generation control being triggered, displaying a point auto-increment rule editing page” and “determining the name information of the plurality of points based on a point name generation rule in the point auto-increment rule editing page” which is merely the addition of the extra solution activity of displaying of information along with further defining the abstract idea of determining name information specifying a generation rule.
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on claim 2, it merely adds the limitations ” triggering selection of at least one point creation path in the point creation area, wherein the point creation path comprises a start point and an end point” and “configuring a point division rule for the at least one point creation path, to determine the plurality of points based on the point division rule” which is merely the addition of the extra solution activity of data selection and the addition of the abstract idea of configuring a rule to determine the plurality of points where such a determination can be made be a person in their mind by determining any method of which to determine a plurality of points.
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on claim 5, it merely adds the limitation “configuring orientation information for the plurality of points, so that a robot docks based on the orientation information.” Which is merely the addition of extra salutation activity of data selection/manipulation.
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on claim 3, it merely adds the limitations “associating the name information with the plurality of automatically created points,” and “displaying the plurality of points and the corresponding name information on the area map” which is merely the addition of the abstract idea of association of name information with point as well as the addition of the extra solution activity of displaying of data.
Regarding claim 8, which is dependent on claim 1, it merely adds the limitation “displaying a plurality of editable points to be adjusted, when an operation that triggers updating of point orientation information is detected”, “determining a target adjustment point based on a trigger operation for the point to be adjusted”, and “editing target orientation information for the target adjustment point, to update orientation information of the target adjustment point based on the target orientation information” which is merely the addition of the extra solution activity of the displaying of data, the addition of the abstract idea of determination of a target adjustment point, and the extra solution activity of data manipulation.
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on claim 8, it merely adds the limitation “wherein the point to be adjusted comprises at least one of the following: all points in the target area; a point created in the same batch as a point to be adjusted that triggers selection; and a point located in the same direction as the point to be adjusted that triggers selection” which is merely further defining the abstract idea of determination of a target adjustment point where a target adjustment point is determined from a more specific set.
Claims 9-18 recites an electronic device with limitations substantially the same as claims 1-9 above, therefore they are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 19-20 recites a non-transitory storage medium with limitations substantially the same as claims 1 and 8 above, therefor they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nesbitt (US 8135539 B2) henceforth referred to as Nesbitt.
Regarding Claim 1, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 10 below, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 10 Nesbitt teaches An electronic device, comprising (FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a communications system capable of presenting a route between origin and destination locations.):
one or more processors (col 3 : “Each of the client device 120, the client controller 125, the host device 135, and the host controller 140 typically includes one or more hardware components and/or software components. An example of a client device 120 or a host device 135 is a general-purpose computer (e.g., a personal computer) capable of responding to and executing instructions in a defined manner. Other examples include a special-purpose computer, a workstation, a server, a device, a component, other physical or virtual equipment or some combination thereof capable of responding to and executing instructions.”); and
a storage apparatus configured to store one or more programs (a computer would be required to utilized a storage apparatus to store at least one program in order to function as described in the specification), wherein
the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
display an area map corresponding to a target area on a display interface in response to a first trigger operation (col 2 : “A map is displayed for a route and includes a variable road network map showing finer detail for geographic features near the route and less detail for geographic features farther from the route.”, col 5 : “FIG. 3 illustrates a route presentation 300 that provides both context route information and detail route information. The route presentation 300 may be displayed on a client system display, such as the display 295 of FIG. 2.”, it would be required that a trigger operation take place in order to display the information as the display cannot always display the information.);
determine a point location creation area in response to a trigger operation of a user for the area map, wherein the point location creation area corresponds to at least part of the target area (col 6 : “The route presentation 300 may be interactive. For example, the context map 310 may include one or more user-selectable portions that, when clicked or otherwise selected, present a corresponding detail map.”); and
create a plurality of point locations automatically in the point location creation area, and display the plurality of point locations on the area map, in response to a trigger operation for a batch creating of point locations (col 6 : “In some implementations, a detail map may include different types of POIs along different portions of the route. For example, a route along a state road may include a scenic vista POI, a historic landmark POI, and a park POI, while a route along an interstate highway includes POIs for gas, food and lodging opportunities.”, col 6 : “The types and proximities of POIs presented may be controllable by the user. For example, a user may select to drive eight hours in a day and hotels approximately eight hours away may be displayed (e.g., hotels that are less than six hours or more than ten hours are not displayed).”).
Regarding Claim 19, it recites a non-transitory storage medium with limitations substantially the same as claim 10 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 10-18, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior arts found are
Li et al (Machine Translation of CN 116858267 A) teaches constructing a global grid map of a target area, where the global grid map includes a task point and an obstacle. The global grid map is divided into multiple areas. A robot system model is constructed where the task point is located in the task area. An initial position information of the robot is located. The access sequence of the multi-target task point is determined to obtain the running path of the robot according to the minimum principle of the sum of the cost. The driving path of the robot is optimized using the LPA algorithm. Judging whether the robot reaches the target task point. The target task is finished by the robot target task point when the robot reaches the target task point. The path is planned from the current position to the target task point until multiple task points are finished when the robot not reaches the target task point. Multiple grid maps are updated to realize the optimal path planning.
Lear et al (US 20190265058 A1) teaches a system that can determine route information associated with a route of a vehicle, identify a point of interest (POI) based on the route information, and identify a portion of the route that has a shortest distance to the POI. The device can determine one or more paths from the POI, and determine whether the portion of the route is included in an initial portion of a path of the one or more paths. The device can determine whether the POI is located to a right of the portion of the route, and perform one or more actions to cause the route information and information regarding the POI to be provided to a user device associated with the vehicle based on whether the portion of the route is included in the initial portion of the path, and whether the POI is located to the right of the portion of the route.
Koizumi (US 6462676 B1) teaches A map displaying apparatus is provided with: a memory device for storing map data including road data and name data;. a map displaying device for displaying a map within a map display range by using the map data; a point determining device for determining one point or a plurality of points within the map display range; and a searching device for extracting the name data related to the specified point or points by searching the map data stored in the memory device. The map displaying apparatus is also provided with a name displaying device for displaying the extracted name data by superimposing the extracted name data on the map displayed by the map displaying device.
Baracco et al (US 20170363437 A1) teaches a system for providing a navigation user interface. The apparatus may be caused to: receive an indication of an origin and a destination; provide for presentation of a representation of the origin, a representation of the destination, and a representation of the route there between, where the representation of the route may include a bar extending in a circular shape between the representation of the origin and the representation of the destination, and defining a map display region within the circular shape. The apparatus may also be configured to provide for presentation of a present location indicator on the representation of the route and provide for presentation of a map within the map display region. The map within the map display region may correspond to at least one of a current location or a user selected location along the route.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID HATCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4518. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, James J Lee can be reached on 571-270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights