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 .
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 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a series of steps for providing the user with directions. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step of receiving data is mere data gathering and the limitations that involve identifying regions, selecting paths, and providing indications are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the process on a generic computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not claim significantly more than a series of instructions implemented on a generic computer. Additionally, the dependent claims do not add claim significantly more than a series of instructions implemented on a generic computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khmelev et al. (US Pat No. 11,626,001).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Khmelev teaches a computer implemented method comprising:
Non-transitory computer readable medium executed by computer processors to perform the below listed operations (Col. 5 lines 35-40) and
receiving data indicating a point of interest that is identified by a user (See Fig. 8 and Col. 16 line 55 to Col. 17 line 18, “The user has indicated he will be traveling along his normal route 810 via a first road 808 to a destination 850… a user may enter their planned route to a new destination.”);
identifying one or more obstacle-free regions in an environment (See Fig. 8 and Col. 16 line 55 to Col. 17 line 18, “Instead, the system recommends a secondary route 820, which may be slightly longer, but is clear of any obstructions, and is otherwise wheelchair friendly, as identified by a second label 814.”);
selecting, from among multiple candidate paths through the environment to the point of interest, a particular path through the environment to the point of interest (See Fig. 8 and Col. 16 line 55 to Col. 17 line 18, “Instead, the system recommends a secondary route 820, which may be slightly longer, but is clear of any obstructions, and is otherwise wheelchair friendly, as identified by a second label 814.”); and
providing one or more indicators for the particular path to the point of interest (See Fig. 8 and Col. 16 line 55 to Col. 17 line 18, “In FIG. 8, a map 840 is depicted that may be shown to a wearer of a personal wearable environmental monitoring and alert system via a display included with or connected to the user's system…The normal route 810 has been identified as undesirable by a first label 812. Instead, the system recommends a secondary route 820, which may be slightly longer, but is clear of any obstructions, and is otherwise wheelchair friendly, as identified by a second label 814.”).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Khmelev teaches the particular path through the environment is selected further based on performing a ground plane analysis (See Fig. 8 and Col. 16 line 55 to Col. 17 line 18, “In other embodiments, a user may enter their planned route to a new destination and the system can be configured to provide feedback about the selected path, such as the quality of the terrain, how steep or hilly the path will be, the traffic conditions in the area, and other such undesirable conditions.”).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Khmelev teaches the multiple candidate paths represent paths from a current position in the environment that is associated with the user and a position in the environment that is associated with the point of interest (See Fig. 8 and Col. 16 line 55 to Col. 17 line 18).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Khmelev teaches the one or more indicators for the particular path are provided for display to the user instead of providing an image of the environment (See Fig. 8 and Col. 16 line 55 to Col. 17 line 18).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Khmelev teaches identifying one or more updated obstacle-free regions in the environment, selecting, from among multiple updated candidate paths through the environment to the point of interest, an updated particular path through the environment to the point of interest; and providing one or more updated indicators for the updated particular path to the point of interest (See Fig. 8 and Col. 16 line 55 to Col. 17 line 18).
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 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khmelev as applied to claims 2, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of Moore et al. (US Pub No. 2013/0325319).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Khmelev does not teach the indicators are virtual spheres.
Moore teaches the indicators are virtual spheres (See [0423] and Fig. 49, step 4920 which shows only the selected route on the map.).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Khmelev’s system to include Moore’s teachings for greater user convenience. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claims 7, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khmelev as applied to claims 2, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of Bigio et al. (US Pub No. 2019/0383631).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 21, Khmelev does not teach the indicators are virtual spheres.
Bigio teaches the indicators are virtual spheres (See [0152]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Khmelev’s system to include Bigio’s teachings in order to better provide a clean and uncluttered view for easier to follow directions. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS S MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)272-0841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS S MCCORMACK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights