DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This office action is in response to the application on 15 November 2024.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1-6 are pending. Claim 1 is an independent claim.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed applications, 18436421, 16570298, 15346599, 13987520, and 11974258 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/15/2024 have been accepted and entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a second user interface of the mapping application configured to communicate with the online mapping service to display a second map of the selected one of the at least one point-of-interest and a location of the mobile device” The claimed language is stating that that online mapping service is displaying the map after the communication occurs; however, the Examiner believes that the second user interface displays the second map in response the communication with the online mapping service. Therefore, Claim 1 recites comprises a typographical error. The Examiner recommends amending the limitation to indicate that the second user interface displays a second map of the selected one of the at least one point-of-interest and a location of the mobile device in response to the communication from the online mapping service. For example, the Examiner suggests amending the limitation as follows: “a second user interface of the mapping application configured to communicate with the online mapping service; wherein the second interface displays a second map of the selected one of the at least one point-of-interest and a location of the mobile device in response to the communication the online mapping service”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitation “a mapping component of the non-browser application configured to transmit map-able content associated with the at least one point-of-interest to an online mapping service when a selected one of the at least one point-of-interest is selected by a user” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a mapping component”, nothing in the claim element precludes this step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “mapping component”, this step in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually recognize if a POI has been selected by a user or not before proceeding to the next step of instructions.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
a storage device of a mobile device storing a non-browser application and a mapping application;
a processor of the mobile device executing the non-browser application and the mapping application;
a first user interface of the non-browser application displaying a first map with at least one point-of-interest;
a mapping component of the non-browser application configured to transmit map-able content associated with the at least one point-of-interest to an online mapping service when a selected one of the at least one point-of-interest is selected by a user; and
a second user interface of the mapping application configured to communicate with the online mapping service to display a second map of the selected one of the at least one point-of-interest and a location of the mobile device.
The “storing” limitation is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) The mobile device and storage device in the storing limitation is claimed at a high level of generality such that the mobile device and storage device are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of storing data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “displaying/display” limitations are a mere nominal or tangential addition
to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution
activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) The user device in
the output limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the user device
is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Each of the “communicate” and “transmit” limitations are merely post-solution steps of transmitting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05. The mapping component, non-browser application, online mapping service, second user interface, mobile device in the limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the mapping component, non-browser application, online mapping service, mapping application, second user interface, mobile device are used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
The limitation(s) “processor of the mobile device executing the non-browser application and the mapping application” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The judicial exception of “processor of the mobile device executing the non-browser application and the mapping application” is performed using “a processor” The processor is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the processor executes the applications. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “the non-browser application and the mapping application” and do not include any details about how the “executing” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the limitation recites only the idea of processor of the mobile device executing the applications without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the processor of the mobile device executing the applications solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Thus, fails to recite details of how the solution is accomplished. Also, the claim invokes a processor is merely as a tool for making the recited executing the applications rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).. Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
In addition, the claim not does provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. This is because the claim is claimed at a broad applicability. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements – storage device, processor, first user interface, mapping component, non-browser application, mapping application, online mapping service, second user interface, mobile device to perform all the storing, executing, displaying, transmit, selected, communicate, and display steps. The storage device, processor, first user interface, mapping component, non-browser application, mapping application, online mapping service, second user interface, mobile device in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of all of the storing, executing, displaying, transmit, selected, communicate, and display functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The “communicate” and “transmit” limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity(e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation and use of the mapping component, non-browser application, online mapping service, second user interface, mobile device in the communicate and/or transmit steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a processing and insignificant extra- solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The displaying limitation is recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to presenting offers and gathering statistics, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The “store” limitation is recited at a high level of generality. This element amounts
to storing and retrieving information in memory are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334,
115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The use of a storage device and mobile device in the storing step(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception (use of a storage device and mobile device) and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the storage device, processor, first user interface, mapping component, non-browser application, mapping application, online mapping service, second user interface, mobile device to perform the storing, executing, displaying, transmit, selected, communicate, and display steps amounts 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2, the limitation(s) of “…displays…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Displaying information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 3, the limitation(s) of “…displays…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Displaying information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible
As per dependent claim 4, the limitation(s) “…transmits…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, providing data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 5, the claims do not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 1.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 6, the limitation(s) of “…displays…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Displaying information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 of the current application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12185177
As per independent claim 1 of the current application, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variations of each other being substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology such that claim 1 is generic to the claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12185177. Both applications discloses a storage device/memory of a mobile device storing a (first) non-browser application and a mapping application/second non-browser application; a processor of the mobile device executing the (first) non-browser application and the mapping application; a first user interface of the (first) non-browser application displaying a first map with at least one point-of-interest; a mapping component of the (first) non-browser application configured to transmit map-able content associated with the at least one point-of-interest to an online mapping service when a selected one of the at least one point-of-interest is selected by a user; and a second user interface of the mapping application/second non-browser configured to communicate with the online mapping service to display a second map of the selected one of the at least one point-of-interest and a location of the mobile device. Therefore, claim 1 of the current application is/are anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12185177 since claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12185177 contain all the limitations/subject matter of claim 1 of the current application.
Dependent claims 2-6
Claim 4 of 12185177 recite similar limitations as Claim 2 of the current application
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claims 1-6 of the current application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11937145
As per independent claim 1 of the current application, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variations of each other being substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology such that claim 1 is generic to the claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11937145. Both applications discloses a storage device/memory of a mobile device storing a (first) non-browser application and a mapping application/second non-browser application; a processor of the mobile device executing the (first) non-browser application and the mapping application; a first user interface of the (first) non-browser application displaying a first map with at least one point-of-interest (icon corresponding to a location on the map and text associated with icon); a mapping component of the (first) non-browser application configured to transmit map-able content associated with the at least one point-of-interest (icon/text) to an online mapping service when a selected one of the at least one point-of-interest (icon/text) is selected by a user; and a second user interface of the mapping application/second non-browser configured to communicate with the online mapping service to display a second map the at least one point-of-interest (icon/text) and a location of the mobile device.
Dependent claims 2-6
Claims 1 and 9 of 11937145 recite similar limitations as Claim 2 of the current application
Claims 1 and 7 of 11937145 recite similar limitations as Claims 3, 4, 5 of the current application
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 10469980 in view of Chu in further view of Pechatnikvo (US 20030229441, 2003).
As per independent claim 1 of the current application, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variations of each other being substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology such that claim 1 is generic to the claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 10469980. Both applications discloses a storage device/memory of a mobile device storing a (first) non-browser application and a mapping application/second non-browser application; a processor of the mobile device executing the (first) non-browser application and the mapping application; a first user interface of the (first) non-browser application displaying a first map with at least one point-of-interest; a mapping component of the (first) non-browser application configured to transmit map-able content to an online mapping service; and a second user interface of the mapping application/second non-browser configured to communicate with the online mapping service to display a second map of the mapable content. However, 10469980 fails to disclose a first user interface the non-browser application displaying a first map with the at least one point-of-interest; a mapping component of the non-browser application configured to transmit map-able content associated with the at least one point-of-interest to an online mapping service when a selected one of the at least one point-of-interest is selected by a user; and.
However, Chu et al discloses a first user interface the non-browser application displaying a first map with the at least one point-of-interest; a mapping component of the non-browser application configured to transmit map-able content associated with the at least one point-of-interest to an online mapping service when a selected one of the at least one point-of-interest is selected by a user; and (0003, 0005;FIG 1A-C: user provides a request for gift card shops proximal to the user’s entered location and in response, a map showing the locations of the gift card shops near the user’s location . In addition, 0023 discloses a user selecting a display POI and for additional information to be displayed or other interaction, a form of transmitting map-able content associated with the at least one point-of-interest )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have combined 10469980 with the disclose features of Chu since it would have provided the benefit of location-based POI searches provide great convenience and utility to users of various devices
However, 10469980 and Chu fails to disclose wherein upon receiving a user selection of the POI, the mapping component transmits mapable content corresponding to the selected icon/POI to the online mapping service, wherein, in response, the device displays a user interface… including a map of the selected point-of-interest and location of the mobile device.
However, Pechatnikvo discloses determining a location of the mobile device (0123: Discloses a GPS unit is used to obtain the location of the client device. Furthermore, Pechatnikvo discloses the user can submit a query for a POI in response to a button/icon being selected, such as the “Navigate” button/icon. (0224) In response, the server is requested for navigation directions to the selected POI. Thus, a query is transmitted to the server for directions to the selected POI. 0183-0192 discloses that when the server receives the request for directions for the selected POI, the server is provided the starting location of the client that automatically determined by GPS (location of the mobile device). The server generates a route between the two locations and sends the route to a mapping engine on the server (0194). The server creates a map involving the route that shows the user’s position and the location of the selected POI. Thus, server provides mapping of the route of the user’s current position to the selected POI. The server sends the map in segments to the user for display. (0195) While Pechatnikvo discloses the mapping of the route is shown in segments, it is implicit that one of these segments includes the showing of the selected POI on a map. This was map was generated in response to the selection of the “Navigate” button/icon. Thus, the POI being displayed is associated the Navigate button/icon since it resulted in the POI being displayed on a map.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have combined to have modified the cited art with the feature of Pechatnikvo et al since it would have provided the benefit of permitting rich, dynamic information to be downloaded rapidly and efficiently from a mapping server over a low-speed wireless link to a client device along with enabling the client to display maps to the user with enhanced speed and clarity, notwithstanding the limited communication bandwidth and display capabilities of the client device.
Dependent claims 2-6
Claim 1 of 10469980 recite similar limitations as Claim 2, 5 of the current application
Claim 5 of 10469980 recite similar limitations as Claim 6 of the current application
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 9532164 in further view of Chu et al in view of Pechatnikvo.
As per independent claim 1 of the current application, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variations of each other being substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology such that claim 1 is generic to the claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. No. 9532164. Both applications discloses a storage device/memory of a mobile device storing a (first) non-browser application and a mapping application/second non-browser application; a processor of the mobile device executing the (first) non-browser application and the mapping application; a first user interface of the (first) non-browser application displaying a first map with at least one point-of-interest; a mapping component of the (first) non-browser application configured to transmit map-able content to an online mapping service; and a second user interface of the mapping application/second non-browser configured to communicate with the online mapping service to display a second map of the mapable content. However, 9532164 fails to disclose a first user interface the non-browser application displaying a first map with the at least one point-of-interest; a mapping component of the non-browser application configured to transmit map-able content associated with the at least one point-of-interest to an online mapping service when a selected one of the at least one point-of-interest is selected by a user; and. However, Chu et al discloses a first user interface the non-browser application displaying a first map with the at least one point-of-interest; a mapping component of the non-browser application configured to transmit map-able content associated with the at least one point-of-interest to an online mapping service when a selected one of the at least one point-of-interest is selected by a user; and (0003, 0005;FIG 1A-C: user provides a request for gift card shops proximal to the user’s entered location and in response, a map showing the locations of the gift card shops near the user’s location . In addition, 0023 discloses a user selecting a display POI and for additional information to be displayed or other interaction, a form of transmitting map-able content associated with the at least one point-of-interest )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have combined 9532164 with the disclose features of Chu since it would have provided the benefit of location-based POI searches provide great convenience and utility to users of various devices
However, 9532164 and Chu fails to disclose wherein upon receiving a user selection of the POI, the mapping component transmits mapable content corresponding to the selected icon/POI to the online mapping service, wherein, in response, the device displays a user interface… including a map of the selected point-of-interest and location of the mobile device.
However, Pechatnikvo discloses determining a location of the mobile device (0123: Discloses a GPS unit is used to obtain the location of the client device. Furthermore, Pechatnikvo discloses the user can submit a query for a POI in response to a button/icon being selected, such as the “Navigate” button/icon. (0224) In response, the server is requested for navigation directions to the selected POI. Thus, a query is transmitted to the server for directions to the selected POI. 0183-0192 discloses that when the server receives the request for directions for the selected POI, the server is provided the starting location of the client that automatically determined by GPS (location of the mobile device). The server generates a route between the two locations and sends the route to a mapping engine on the server (0194). The server creates a map involving the route that shows the user’s position and the location of the selected POI. Thus, server provides mapping of the route of the user’s current position to the selected POI. The server sends the map in segments to the user for display. (0195) While Pechatnikvo discloses the mapping of the route is shown in segments, it is implicit that one of these segments includes the showing of the selected POI on a map. This was map was generated in response to the selection of the “Navigate” button/icon. Thus, the POI being displayed is associated the Navigate button/icon since it resulted in the POI being displayed on a map.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the feature of Pechatnikvo et al since it would have provided the benefit of permitting rich, dynamic information to be downloaded rapidly and efficiently from a mapping server over a low-speed wireless link to a client device along with enabling the client to display maps to the user with enhanced speed and clarity, notwithstanding the limited communication bandwidth and display capabilities of the client device.
Dependent claims 2-6
Claim 8 of 9532164 recite similar limitations as Claim 2 of the current application
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and double patenting set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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 supervisor, signing this office action, William Bashore can be reached at 5712724088. 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.
/D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
