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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 11/8/2024. Applicant has filed a provisional application and thus the domestic benefit of 1/4/2024 is the effective filing date. Claims 1-3 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 6 provides information that is not entirely clear. For instance, one of the boxes states “2223 3 Operating System” which the Examiner believes should be updated to instead state “2223 [ [ 3 ] ] Operating System”. Additionally, some of the boxes within Figure 6 list a number and associated description, and appear to have some deleted information included. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 as currently presented states “…a desired sub-location, the sub-location…the sub-location…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a desired sub-location, the desired sub-location…the desired sub-location…” for the sake of consistency.
Claim 1 as currently presented states “…a computing device operated by the user comprising a camera…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a computing device operated by the user, the computing device comprising a camera…” or the like.
Claim 2 as currently presented states “A mapping system…the system…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “A mapping system…the mapping system…” for the sake of consistency.
Claim 2 as currently presented states “…servers configured to received requests…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…servers configured to receive requests…”.
Claim 2 as currently presented states “…one or more kiosks in communication with the one or more mapping servers and located at at least one of the…” which the Examiner recommends updating so as to avoid grammatically awkward phrasing. The Examiner notes the additional “at” is not necessarily redundant, but recommends updating the limitation so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 3 as currently presented states “…the kiosk further configured to display, or provide access, to the user directions from the kiosk to the one or more sublocations…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…the kiosk further configured to display directions to the user, or provide access to the user, the directions from the kiosk to the one or more sublocations…” or the like, so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, as the claim is currently presented, it is unclear as to the relationship between the sub-location, the specific location, and the larger location. The claim states “…the sub-location comprising a specific location within a larger location…” however the Examiner does not understand this description since one of ordinary skill in the art may interpret this phrase as (1) a specific location within a desired sub-location, both the specific location and desired sub-location within a larger location, or alternatively (2) a desired sub-location and larger location as being the same thing.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the desired sub-location as being either scenario, however paragraph [0037] of the instant specification implies scenario (2).
Regarding claim 2, as the claim is currently presented, it is unclear where the indication is received from. The claim states “…one or more kiosks in communication with the one or more mapping servers … the one or more kiosks configured to receive an indication of a presence of the one or more computing devices…” however the Examiner is uncertain if (1) the computing device sends information to the kiosk upon entering its proximity, (2) the server indicates that the computing device is near the kiosk, or (3) the kiosk automatically detects that the computing device is nearby.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret any of the three scenarios as being possible.
Regarding claim 3, as the claim is currently presented, it is unclear as to the location of the kiosk. The claim states “…a location comprising the kiosk, the location comprising one or more sublocations…directions from the kiosk to the one or more sublocations…” however the Examiner does not understand where the kiosk is located, or how the kiosk relates to the one or more sublocations. If the Applicant intends for the kiosk to be located at the one or more sublocations, then the claim should be amended to specifically state this.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the kiosk being located at any of the location or one or more sublocations.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire et al. (US-2022/0065651; hereinafter Beau) in view of Ta et al. (US-2023/0076300; hereinafter Ta).
Regarding claim 1, Beau discloses a method of providing map directions to a user (see Beau at least [0001]), the method comprising:
receiving … a selection of a desired sub-location, the sub-location comprising a specific location within a larger location (see Beau at least [0035] "...In this embodiment, for example, in step 201, the system 100 can prompt a user to enter via the UE 105 a destination…" and [0053] "In the AR mode, the system 100 can use sensor data from the UE 105 or a vehicle to determine a current location and an orientation of the user interface, then retrieve the virtual markers 101 corresponding to the current location as well as 3D map data from the geographic database 115, and augment the virtual marker 101 onto live images of one or more unfamiliar segments of the route accordingly. Based on the 3D map data, the system 100 can determine areas/surfaces in a live preview or a field of view used in the VR mode to augment the virtual marker 101.");
creating a plurality of map directions configured to guide the user to the sub-location (see Beau at least [0036] "In step 203, based on the destination, the system 100 can compute a multi-modal route, that typically contains a combination of modes of transport (e.g., subway, long distance train, etc.) and multiple connections/changes..."); and
providing [data] for the user to access the plurality of map directions such that the plurality of map directions can be displayed on a computing device operated by the user comprising a camera (see Beau at least [0037] "In step 207, the system 100 can create a virtual reality world with virtual markers 101 in the unfamiliar segments, the multi-modal route, or a combination thereof, for the user to explore on the user interface 103 (e.g., on a VR headset)..." and [0101] "In one embodiment, the UE 105 include device sensors 111 (e.g., GPS sensors, a front facing camera, a rear facing camera, multi-axial accelerometers, height sensors, tilt sensors, moisture sensors, pressure sensors, wireless network sensors, etc.) and applications (e.g., the AP application 113, mapping applications, navigation applications, shared vehicle booking or reservation applications, public transportation timetable applications, etc.)..."), wherein the plurality of map directions are displayed to the user in an augmented reality user interface combining the plurality of map directions and one or more images gathered from the camera (see Beau at least [0038]-[0039] "FIG. 3A is a diagram of a user transitioning between VR and AR, according to example embodiment(s). In an illustrative example use case depicted in FIG. 3A, the user can wear a VR headset 301 to experience a subway ticket machine. In this instance, the VR headset 301 presents a VR of the subway ticket machine on a VR user interface 303 which is overlaid with virtual markers 305 (e.g., an arrow pointing at the subway ticket machine, a cue of “ticket”, etc.), and optionally an avatar 307 resembling the user, for example. The avatar can be any icon, symbol, character, etc., and the cue can be in any language(s) that the user can understand. In step 211, when the user actually travels on the multi-modal route in real life, the system 100 can provide augmented reality overlays of the virtual markers 101 on a user interface (e.g., a navigation user interface) at segments wherein the user explored in the VR world, thereby connecting the two experiences. In FIG. 3A, the user is navigating with a smart phone 309. When the user is approaching the subway ticket machine, the system 100 can overlay the virtual markers 305 on an AV user interface 311, to guide the user to purchase a ticket as experienced in the VR world.").
However, Beau does not explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…a kiosk…
…providing a link for the user…
Ta, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…a kiosk (see Ta at least [0020] "FIGS. 1A through 1E are schematic block diagrams and examples of a pedestrian thoroughfare portable kiosk media projection system. The system 100 comprises a pedestrian thoroughfare portable kiosk chassis 102…")…
…providing a link for the user (see Ta at least [0020] "...A media projection subsystem (MPS) 104 is attached to the kiosk chassis 102 and comprises an interface to receive media, an interface to selectively project the media 106, and an interface to supply a media enablement signal in response to the media being projected..." and [0034] "...Alternatively, a display (e.g., MPS 104) may project electronic tickets responsive to the ticket data in the form of QR codes or wireless mediums such as AirDrop, text (SMS), email, WiFi, or Bluetooth communications.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the navigational method as disclosed by Beau with a kiosk capable of providing a link such as taught by Ta with a reasonable expectation of success so as to reliably relay information between a server and a pedestrian (see Ta at least [0010]).
Regarding claim 2, Beau discloses a mapping system for providing map directions to a user (see Beau at least [0001]), the system comprising:
one or more mapping servers configured to received requests from one or more computing devices to create one or more routes to one or more locations comprising one or more sublocations (see Beau at least [0035] "...In this embodiment, for example, in step 201, the system 100 can prompt a user to enter via the UE 105 a destination..." [0049] "In one embodiment, the system 100 of FIG. 1 may include the UE 105 (e.g., a headset, a mobile device, a smartphone, etc.) having connectivity to a mapping platform 107 via a communication network 109…" [0052] "...The system 100 can then create and project the virtual marker 101 (e.g., via the mapping platform 107 and/or the VR/AR application 113) based on user context onto the user interface 103 of the UE 105, to guide the user." [0102] "...In one embodiment, the mapping platform 107 can be a standalone server or a component of another device with connectivity to the communication network 109..."), the one or more mapping servers further configured to transmit the one or more routes to the one or more computing devices (see Beau at least [0052] "...The system 100 can then create and project the virtual marker 101 (e.g., via the mapping platform 107 and/or the VR/AR application 113) based on user context onto the user interface 103 of the UE 105, to guide the user.");
…
However, Beau does not explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…one or more kiosks in communication with the one or more mapping servers and located at at least one of the one or more locations, the one or more kiosks configured to receive an indication of a presence of the one or more computing devices and to provide access to a route to one or more sublocations…
Ta, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…one or more kiosks in communication with the one or more mapping servers and located at at least one of the one or more locations (see Ta at least [0021] "...A kiosk communication subsystem 112 has an interface on line 108 to receive verification information and an interface to communicate the verification information to a server 118…" and [0027] "The kiosk communication subsystem 112 may comprise a cellular telephone, an IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) device, an IEEE 802.15 Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN) device, or combinations thereof. If the communications subsystem 112 is comprised of just a WLAN or WPAN, a proximately located WLAN or WPAN access point (AP) 126 may be used to enable communications between the kiosk system 100 and the server 118..."), the one or more kiosks configured to receive an indication of a presence of the one or more computing devices and to provide access to a route to one or more sublocations (see Ta at least [0035] "FIG. 1D depicts the portable kiosk being used as a directory system, in this case to find an item in a convenience store. The location of the items is presented in text, and directions are provided using a store map..." and [0047] "In some aspects, as an alternative or in addition to the kiosk MPS 104 being engaged, the media message may be pushed to a personal device 178, such as smartphone or personal computer via a wireless medium such as AirDrop, which is engaged when the personal device 178 is in close contact with the kiosk 102. WiFi, text (SMS), or Bluetooth wireless mediums may be used to communicate the media messages to the personal device 178...")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mapping system as disclosed by Beau with a kiosk in communication with a server such as taught by Ta with a reasonable expectation of success so as to reliably relay information between a server and a pedestrian (see Ta at least [0010]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ta et al. (US-2023/0076300; hereinafter Ta) in view of Tovey et al. (US-2023/0230026; hereinafter Tovey).
Regarding claim 3, Ta discloses a kiosk for providing directions to a user (see Ta at least Abs), the kiosk comprising:
one or more communication interfaces configured to communicate with one or more mapping servers (see Ta at least [0021] "...A kiosk communication subsystem 112 has an interface on line 108 to receive verification information and an interface to communicate the verification information to a server 118…" and [0027] "The kiosk communication subsystem 112 may comprise a cellular telephone, an IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) device, an IEEE 802.15 Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN) device, or combinations thereof. If the communications subsystem 112 is comprised of just a WLAN or WPAN, a proximately located WLAN or WPAN access point (AP) 126 may be used to enable communications between the kiosk system 100 and the server 118...");
one or more screens configured to display information to one or more users (see Ta at least [0037] "...FIG. 2D is a plan, top-down view showing that the kiosk of FIG. 2C has 4 display screens 104.");
… the kiosk further configured to display, or provide access, to the user directions from the kiosk to the one or more sublocations upon the user’s arrival at the kiosk (see Ta at least [0035] "FIG. 1D depicts the portable kiosk being used as a directory system, in this case to find an item in a convenience store. The location of the items is presented in text, and directions are provided using a store map. FIG. 1E also shows the kiosk being used as a directory. In this case the directory is located in an airport. The location of the convenience store is listed in text and shown on an airport map. The kiosk directory also lists the time it should take to reach a particular gate from the kiosk, as well as an airport map providing directions to the gate from the kiosk location. Although not shown, the kiosk may also be used to provide travel and health advisories.").
However, Ta does not explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…wherein the kiosk is configured to receive an indication from the one or more mapping servers that a user is arriving at a location comprising the kiosk, the location comprising one or more sublocations…
Tovey, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…wherein the kiosk is configured to receive an indication from the one or more mapping servers that a user is arriving at a location comprising the kiosk, the location comprising one or more sublocations (see Tovey at least [0045]-[0047] "At 310, one or more processors of server 130 or server 200 may receive geographic information about user 105. For example, the geographic information may indicate that user 105 is within a predetermined area associated with physical store 170. The geographic information may be obtained by utilizing a GPS on user device 110 of user 105 or a sensor associated with kiosk 180 in premises 160. At 320, the one or more processors of server 130 or server 200 may determine whether there is a pending remotely placed order for a user account associated with user 105 in database 150. At 330, the one or more processors of server 130 or server 200 may transmit order information to a computing device of kiosk 180 in response to a determination that there is the pending remotely placed order for the user account associated with user 105 in database 150. The order information may include one or more items in the pending remotely placed order.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kiosk capable of providing directions such as disclosed by Ta with locational information relayed by a server such as taught by Tovey with a reasonable expectation of success so as to verify system readiness upon a user’s arrival (see Tovey at least [0017]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Verbeke et al. (US-2021/0276568) teaches a kiosk capable, capable of user interaction, which displays a map to a destination.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 PM.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663