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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Rejection in response to the communication filed on 06/17/2026. Claims 1—20 are currently pending.
Priority
The Applicant’s claim for benefit of Foreign Patent Application KR10-2023-0161426, filed in the Republic of Korea on 11/20/2023, has been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 11/19/2024 has been reviewed and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 06/17/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 6—8 and 10—17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments applied to claims 6—8 and 10—17 overcome the previously provided rejection by fixing the antecedent basis issues. Accordingly, the previously provided rejection of claims 6—8 and 10—17 is withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 06/17/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The Response at page 12 states “[t]he amendments directly cure this by detailing the precise mechanical and graphical structure of the user interface. The claimed invention generates a specific, two-tiered hierarchical graphical user interface structure: a primary screen presenting dynamically prioritized categories (types of places) as selectable graphical items, which, only upon a user’s selection, triggers a secondary display of specific destinations,” to which the Examiner does not agree. For example, independent claim 1 does not claim a user interface; the only positively recited physical features of claim 1 are a computing device comprising a processor and a memory. While the computing device is configured in some manner to control a user interface, the user interface is not a positively recited feature of the computing device. Accordingly, the following limitations are not adequately integrated into the computing device:
“controlling a user interface to display the plurality of surrounding search categories according to the respective priorities”;
“wherein each of the plurality of surrounding search categories is displayed as a selectable item on a surrounding search screen, each surrounding search category corresponding to a type of place”; and
“wherein, when one of the plurality of surrounding search categories is selected, destinations corresponding to the one of the plurality of surrounding search categories are displayed”.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein, when one of the plurality of surrounding search categories is selected, destinations corresponding to the one of the plurality of surrounding search categories are displayed,” constitutes a conditional statement and is not required to be performed in order for the claim to be fully performed. Even if the computing device of claim 1 were amended to positively recite the user interface, the claim as currently drafted, is merely using generic computer components to display data (e.g., not a practical application) according to a preferential configuration/ranking (e.g., directed to an abstract idea). Moreover, the assertion that the claim provides a technical improvement in the art of vehicle navigation (e.g., as stated on page 12 of the Response) is unpersuasive because the abstract idea cannot provide for the technological improvement.
For example, the MPEP 2106.05(a) states “[i]t is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement,” (e.g., MPEP 2106.05(a)) and “[n]otably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(a), Section II). The improvement of the instant claims is in the ranking of the data, which is described very generically. Merely displaying an improved ranking is neither of a practical application (e.g., as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)) nor an improvement in the technology (e.g., as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Likewise, claim 18, which is directed to a method of use, does not provide for a practical application because it is directed to performing an abstract idea (e.g., generating a ranking/hierarchy of data) using generically recited computer components (e.g., processor, memory, display). Merely displaying the result of an abstract idea (e.g., displaying the data) does not constitute a practical application of the identified abstract idea and is rather a mere directive to apply the exception (e.g., equivalent to “apply it” as discussed in the Non-Final Office Action dated 03/25/2026).
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained as modified below in view of the provided amendments.
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 06/17/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1—5 and 18—20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. More specifically, while the provided amendments overcome the rejection of record, claims 1—5 and 18—20 remain anticipated by Tsuyoshi.
The Response at page 13 states “Tsuyoshi fails to disclose the specific, two-tiered categorized user interface structure now recited in independent claims 1 and 18,” to which the Examiner does not agree. To start, neither of claims 1 nor 18 positively recite a two-tiered categorized user interface because the second tier is recited as a conditional limitation and is not required in order for the claims to be fully performed. Furthermore, and as addressed above with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, claim 1 does not positively recite a user interface. The system of claim 1 merely recites a computer device which comprises a processor and a memory. As drafted, the computer device is capable of interfacing with a user interface; however the manner in which the computer device and the user interface are connected is undefined. For example, it is not clear whether or not the user interface of claim 1 is actually part of the claimed computing device.
With respect to the term “categories”, the Response at page 14 states “Tsuyoshi entirely lacks the concept of scoring and displaying search categories (i.e., types of places such as ‘gas stations’ or ‘restaurants’ broadly) as a first-tier interactive menu.” Examiner note the term “categories,” as claimed, does not inherently carry any specific definition. For example, the claims do not recite any limitations which restrict what qualifies as a “category” other than the categories have to correspond to a type of place (e.g., which is also undefined). Furthermore, there is no required interpretation around the term “type of place,” which narrows the claim in the manner in which the Applicant asserts. For example, a type of place could be: preferred or not preferred, open or closed, within a certain distance threshold, and endless other options because neither the claim nor the Specification provide a definition which requires any specific interpretation the terms of “categories” and/or “type of place.” Additionally, Examiner notes that Tsuyoshi at page 6 discusses generating categories out of specific points of interest where the category of noodles may include both ramen and pasta. Accordingly, the assertion that Tsuyoshi only considers points of interest and does not consider categories is not supported by the disclosure of the reference.
For the reasons provided above, the rejection of claim 1—5 and 18—20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 to Tsuyoshi are maintained as modified below in view of the amendments.
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 06/17/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1—5, 13—14, and 18—20 under 35 US.C. 102 to Zender have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1—5, 13—14, and 18—20 under 35 US.C. 102 to Zender are withdrawn.
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 1—17 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.
Claim 1, directed to a computing device, recites the limitation “controlling a user interface to display the plurality of surrounding search categories according to the respective priorities,” without positively reciting that the computing device includes a user interface. More specifically, the claim positively recites a computing device comprising a processor and a memory, but does not positively a computing device comprising a user interface. Accordingly, it is unclear whether and/or how the following limitations are performed by the claimed computing device:
“controlling a user interface to display the plurality of surrounding search categories according to the respective priorities”;
“wherein each of the plurality of surrounding search categories is displayed as a selectable item on a surrounding search screen, each surrounding search category corresponding to a type of place”; and
“wherein, when one of the plurality of surrounding search categories is selected, destinations corresponding to the one of the plurality of surrounding search categories are displayed”.
In view of the foregoing statements, claim 1 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear how the above listed limitations relate to, or could be performed by, the recited computing device. Claims 2—17 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending from a rejected base claim.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the user interface is understood to be a component of the computing device.
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 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1 and 18 are directed to a product (machine or manufacture) and a method (process), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent SUBJECT Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception
Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
“obtaining… a vehicle information indicating a state of the vehicle” (e.g., a mental process)
“obtaining, based on the vehicle information, a context information indicating a situation of a passenger” (e.g., a mental process); and
“determining respective priorities of a plurality of surrounding search categories based on the context information” (e.g., a mental process).
Claims 18 recites the following abstract ideas:
“obtaining… a vehicle information indicating a state of the vehicle” (e.g., a mental process);
“obtaining, based on the vehicle information, a context information indicating a situation of a passenger” (e.g., a mental process); and
“determining respective priorities of a plurality of surrounding search categories based on the context information” (e.g., a mental process).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the above identified limitations cover abstract ideas directed to mental processes. For example, a human mind is capable of obtaining the state of a vehicle by observing sensor information or by observing the vehicle itself. A human mind is further capable of obtaining information related to the situation of a passenger by either of observation alone, or observation combined with other received data. Finally, a human mind is capable of making determinations related to ranking priorities based on received data (e.g., context information or any other type of data).
The MPEP states the following regarding mental processes:
“[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’… Accordingly, the ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. A discussion of concepts performed in the human mind, as well as concepts that cannot practically be performed in the human mind and thus are not ‘mental processes’, is provided below with respect to point A.” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section III).
Accordingly, the above identified limitations are directed to abstract ideas such that claims 1 and 18 recite abstract ideas.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“a processor” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components, including a processor, is equivalent to mere directive to apply the identified judicial exceptions; equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“a memory connected to the processor” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components, including a memory, is equivalent to mere directive to apply the identified judicial exceptions; equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“at least one sensor of a vehicle” (e.g., indicative of a field of use in which the abstract idea is applied and/or necessary data gathering for performing the abstract idea; Examiner notes this limitation is not positively recited as part of the computer device of claim 1);
“a user interface” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components, including a computer display, is equivalent to mere directive to apply the identified judicial exceptions; equivalent to reciting “apply it”; Examiner notes this limitation is not positively recited in the claim as discussed above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b));
“controlling a user interface to display the plurality of surrounding search categories according to the respective priorities, wherein each of the plurality of surrounding search categories is displayed as a selectable item on a surrounding search screen,” (e.g., a generic application recited at a high—level of generality equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“each surrounding search category corresponding to a type of place” (e.g., extra-solution activity directed to limiting data according to source, content, and/or type); and
“wherein, when one of the plurality of surrounding search categories is selected, destinations corresponding to the one of the plurality of surrounding search categories are displayed” (e.g., a conditional limitation which is not required to be performed in order for the claim to be performed; however, even if positively recited the limitation would be directed to a mere directive to apply the identified judicial exception; equivalent to reciting “apply it”).
Claims 18 recites the following additional elements:
“a computer device” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components, including a computer device, is equivalent to mere directive to apply the identified judicial exceptions; equivalent to reciting “apply it”. Notably, this limitation is not positively claimed but it is addressed for the sake of compact prosecution);
“at least one sensor of a vehicle” (e.g., indicative of a field of use and/or necessary data gathering for performing the abstract idea);
“a user interface” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components, including a computer display, is equivalent to mere directive to apply the identified judicial exceptions; equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“controlling a user interface to display the plurality of surrounding search categories according to the respective priorities, wherein each of the plurality of surrounding search categories is displayed as a selectable item on a surrounding search screen” (e.g., a generic application recited at a high—level of generality equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“each surrounding search category corresponding to a type of place” (e.g., extra-solution activity directed to limiting data according to source, content, and/or type); and
“wherein, when one of the plurality of surrounding search categories is selected, destinations corresponding to the one of the plurality of surrounding search categories are displayed” (e.g., a conditional limitation which is not required to be performed in order for the claim to be performed; however, even if positively recited the limitation would be directed to a mere directive to apply the identified judicial exception; equivalent to reciting “apply it”).
The above identified limitations of claims 1 and 18 constitute additional elements. However, for the reasons identified above, and discussed further below, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, the final limitation in each of claims 1 and 18 (e.g., directed to selecting a search category and displaying corresponding destinations) is a conditional limitation which is not required to be performed in order to fully perform claims 1 and 18. Accordingly, the above identified additional elements do not integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
Claim 1 recites the limitations of “a processor”; “a memory connected to the processor”; and “a user interface”. Claim 18 recites the limitations of “a computer device” and “a user interface.” While these limitations are directed to additional elements, they do not provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions because they merely recite generic computer components and are therefore equivalent to a mere directive to apply the identified judicial exceptions. For example, regarding such claim limitations, the MPEP states “[w]hen 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, examiners may consider the following… (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” (MPEP 2106.05(f), Section 2). Accordingly, the limitations of claims 1 and 18 directed to generic computer components do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations are equivalent to a mere directive to apply the exception.
Claims 1 and 18 recite the limitation “at least one sensor of a vehicle,” which constitutes an additional element; however, the limitation is merely indicative of either of: 1.) a field of use in which the identified abstract ideas are applied or 2.) necessary data gathering for the purpose of performing an abstract idea. As noted above, the “at least one sensor of a vehicle” is not a positively recited component of the computing device of claim 1 and is therefore not understood to be a component of the computing device. Additional elements directed to a field of use and/or data selected according to source or content cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions. For example, the MPEP states “[a]s explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Regarding data selection, the MPEP states Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering: Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982);… iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754” (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 1 and 18 recite the limitation “controlling a user interface to display the plurality of surrounding search categories according to the respective priorities, wherein each of the plurality of surrounding search categories is displayed as a selectable item on a surrounding search screen” which constitutes an additional element; however, the limitation constitutes a mere directive to apply the judicial exception in a manner which does not provide for a practical application. For example, merely displaying the output of an abstract idea does not provide for a specific application of the identified judicial exceptions. Claims 1 and 18 further state the limitation “wherein, when one of the plurality of surrounding search categories is selected, destinations corresponding to the one of the plurality of surrounding search categories are displayed.” As addressed above, this limitation is a conditional limitation which is not required to be performed in order for the claims to be fully performed. However, even if the limitation were positively recited, it still would not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception because merely displaying the outcome of an abstract idea (e.g., displaying data according to a preferential ranking) is not a practical application. As drafted, both limitations merely provide the idea of a solution or outcome. Moreover, the claims do not recite the details of how any particular solution is accomplished. To this end the MPEP states “[b]y way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).” (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the above identified limitations of claims 1 and 18 do not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas because the limitations are equivalent to a mere directive to apply the exception.
Claims 1 and 18 recite the limitation “each surrounding search category corresponding to a type of place,” which functions to further limit the data used in association with the abstract idea according to source and or content. Such limitations cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exception because this type of limitation is directed to court-identified insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, the MPEP states “[b]elow are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:… Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated: i. Limiting a database index to XML tags, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937;… iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the above identified limitations of claims 1 and 18 do not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas because the limitations are directed to court-identified insignificant extra-solution activity.
In addition to the above provided reasons, Examiner further notes, the limitations of the instant claims are generally directed to a process equivalent or substantially similar to: gathering, analyzing, and displaying data/information. To this end, the MPEP states: “[e]xamples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include… iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48” (MPEP 2106.05(a)).” (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Examiner notes the limitations of the claims are currently recited very generically and constitute “conventional techniques.”
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The limitations of claims 2, 5, and 19 function to further limit the claim elements of “state of the vehicle” and “context information” by reciting various types of information which may be selected and utilized to make the determination (e.g., associated with an analysis/mental process). The limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity insofar as selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated constitutes court identified extra-solution activity. For example, the MPEP provides “activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity… selecting a particular data source or type to be manipulated… selecting information… iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)…” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
Claims 3, 4, and 20 recite limitations which are directed to further limiting the abstract idea of “determining respective priorities…” as recited in claims 1 and 18. However, the limitations themselves are directed to the mental processes of “setting a priority of a first surrounding search category…” and “determining a priority related to each item…” which are all directed to actions and determinations which are performable in a human mind. As such, the limitations of claims 3, 4, and 20 are further directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not provide any additional elements which may be utilized to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 6—17 recite limitations directed to separate, additional determinations made which supplement the determination recited in claim 1. As stated above, the action of making a determination (e.g., determining) is performable in a human mind. In some situations the determination may benefit from, or require, the utilization of a mathematical concept; however, limitations directed to mathematical concepts are also categorized as judicial exceptions. In addition to limitations directed to making a determination, Claim 6 further recites limitations directed to “comparing an information of a current location with an information of a reference location.” However, the action of “comparing” (e.g., making a comparison) also constitutes a mental process where a human brain is capable of performing such an action (e.g., comparing data/making comparisons). Separately, Claim 12 further recites the limitation “obtaining a population density of the destination,” which is an additional element; however the limitation is directed to mere data gathering where all uses of the recited judicial exception would require such data gathering. The additional element of “obtaining a population density of the destination,” does not integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application. As such, claims 6—17 recite limitations which themselves are directed to abstract ideas and do not provide additional elements which properly integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(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.
(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) 1—5 and 18—20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Published WIPO Patent Application to Tsuyoshi (WO 2015045629 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuyoshi discloses [a] computing device (navigation system 1; page 3 Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he navigation system 1 of Embodiment 1 comprises a GPS receiver 2, an operation input unit 3, a sensor unit 4, a map database 5, a communication unit 6, a calculation control unit 7, a storage device 8, a display 9, and a speaker 10. The GPS receiver 2 receives radio signals from GPS satellites to detect the vehicle's current location and direction of travel.”), comprising:
a processor (calculation control unit 7; page 4 of Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he calculation control unit 7 consists of a microcomputer and peripheral components such as memory.”); and
a memory connected to the processor (see previous citation to calculation control unit 7) and configured to store therein instructions, wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the instructions cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
obtaining, from at least one sensor of a vehicle (at least GPS receiver 2 and sensor unit 4), a vehicle information indicating a state of the vehicle (pages 3—4 of Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he GPS receiver 2 receives radio signals from GPS satellites to detect the vehicle's current location and direction of travel… The sensor unit 4 is equipped with various sensors that detect the vehicle's speed, distance traveled, direction of travel, and other parameters… The communication unit (interest point detection means) 6 acquires information on specific interest points (POIs) scattered around the vehicle”; page 4 of Tsuyoshi further states “[t]n addition to functions as a navigation device, such as detecting the vehicle's current location based on its mileage and direction of travel, controlling the display of a road map around the vehicle's current location, and searching for a guidance route to the destination, it also functions as a vehicle information display device, providing the driver with information on points of interest acquired by the vehicle.”);
obtaining, based on the vehicle information, a context information indicating a situation of a passenger (page 4 of Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he storage device 8 stores the vehicle's movement history, information on acquired points of interest, and driver preference information, etc. These memory records are updated with the latest information as they become available.”; see above citations to pages 3—4 which discuss identifying the location of the vehicle and associated surrounding points of interest. The location/situation of the vehicle is also the location of the passenger which constitutes a situation of the passenger);
determining respective priorities (weighting coefficient for preference indicator as discussed below) of a plurality of surrounding search categories (strength of preference/degree of preference which is associated with points of interest) based on the context information (page 5 of Tsuyoshi “[t]he calculation control unit 7 includes an interest intensity evaluation unit (interest intensity evaluation means) 7a and a display control unit (display control means) 7b… The display control unit 7b categorizes each interest point according to the evaluation result of the interest intensity evaluation unit 7a and displays it on the display 9.”; Page 5—6 of Tsuyoshi “[i]t is known that the structure of the intensity of interest varies from person to person, and the difference in food preferences, the priority of actions such as shopping, and how to be aware of time and distance traveled vary greatly. Therefore, the strength of interest (MI) is expressed by the following equation (1). MI = K 1 x 1 + K 2 x 2 + K 3 x 3 +… + K n x n … (1) Here, x i is each index such as preference intensity, spatial distance, and temporal distance (required time), and K i represents a weighting coefficient for each index, and the composition of the weight changes depending on the situation and the person. However, the number of indices xi indicators that make up the interest (MI) is not constant, as it varies depending on how people’s preferences are categorized. For example, the degree of preference for ramen and the degree of preference for pasta are expressed separately, or they are used as a single indicator of preference for noodles in general. Furthermore, it could be said that there are infinitely many such categories.”); and
controlling a user interface to display the plurality of surrounding search categories according to the respective priorities (page 5 of Tsuyoshi “[t]he display control unit 7b categorizes each interest point according to the evaluation result of the interest intensity evaluation unit 7a and displays it on the display 9.” The weighting coefficient (e.g., a ranking) applied to the strength of preference (e.g., directed to a point of interest or group of point of interests), spatial distance, and temporal distance are used to determine interest intensity (e.g., of level of interest, MI) which is used to determine how the points of interest are displayed to the user),
wherein each of the plurality of surrounding search categories is displayed as a selectable item on a surrounding search screen, each surrounding search category corresponding to a type of place (the degree of preference is associated with a point of interest (e.g., ramen and/or pasta) or a category of point of interests (e.g., noodles) according to user preference; see above citation to page 6 of Tsuyoshi. Examiner notes the point of interest associated with the degree of preference is a type of place; see FIG. 6 which depicts the category icons displayed on display 9), and
wherein, when one of the plurality of surrounding search categories is selected, destinations corresponding to the one of the plurality of surrounding search categories are displayed (this limitation is not positively recited and is not required to be performed in order for the claim to be performed).
Regarding claim 2, Tsuyoshi discloses wherein the vehicle information includes a vehicle location information (pages 3—4 of Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he GPS receiver 2 receives radio signals from GPS satellites to detect the vehicle's current location and direction of travel… The sensor unit 4 is equipped with various sensors that detect the vehicle's speed, distance traveled, direction of travel, and other parameters… The communication unit (interest point detection means) 6 acquires information on specific interest points (POIs) scattered around the vehicle”), an information on whether a child lock is activated, a distance to empty (DTE) information indicating a fuel level, an information on whether a warning signal is received from the vehicle, an information on whether a wiper is in operation, an information on whether a sunroof is open or closed, or a weight of a loaded cargo.
Regarding claim 3, Tsuyoshi discloses wherein the determining the respective priorities of the plurality of surrounding search categories includes setting a priority of a first surrounding search category related to the context information among the plurality of surrounding search categories to a highest level or a lowest level (Tsuyoshi describes a weighted calculation used to determine an interest intensity among multiple points of interest where the calculation includes a weighting coefficient for the strength of preference/degree of preference which is associated with points of interest. It is implicitly understood that the weighting coefficient can be a maximum value or a minimum value according to user preference or according to behavior history information as discussed on page 7 of Tsuyoshi).
Regarding claim 4, Tsuyoshi discloses wherein the determining the respective priorities of the plurality of surrounding search categories includes determining a priority related to each item of the first surrounding search category (as described above with respect to claim 1, Tsuyoshi describes a weighted calculation used to determine an interest intensity among multiple points of interest where the calculation includes a weighting coefficient for the strength of preference/degree of preference which is associated with points of interest. Each degree of preference which is associated with the points of interest receives a weighting coefficient and therefore a priority).
Regarding claim 5, Tsuyoshi discloses wherein the obtaining the context information indicating the situation of the passenger includes obtaining the context information using information about a current time, a real-time traffic situation, and a specific location (pages 3—4 of Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he GPS receiver 2 receives radio signals from GPS satellites to detect the vehicle's current location and direction of travel… The sensor unit 4 is equipped with various sensors that detect the vehicle's speed, distance traveled, direction of travel, and other parameters… The communication unit (interest point detection means) 6 acquires information on specific interest points (POIs) scattered around the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 18, Tsuyoshi discloses [a] search category varying method (calculations performed by interest intensity evaluation unit as described below) performed by a computing device (navigation system 1 including calculation control unit 7), the method comprising:
obtaining, from at least one sensor of a vehicle (at least GPS receiver 2 and sensor unit 4), a vehicle information indicating a state of the vehicle (pages 3—4 of Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he GPS receiver 2 receives radio signals from GPS satellites to detect the vehicle's current location and direction of travel… The sensor unit 4 is equipped with various sensors that detect the vehicle's speed, distance traveled, direction of travel, and other parameters… The communication unit (interest point detection means) 6 acquires information on specific interest points (POIs) scattered around the vehicle”; page 4 of Tsuyoshi further states “[t]n addition to functions as a navigation device, such as detecting the vehicle's current location based on its mileage and direction of travel, controlling the display of a road map around the vehicle's current location, and searching for a guidance route to the destination, it also functions as a vehicle information display device, providing the driver with information on points of interest acquired by the vehicle.”);
obtaining, based on the vehicle information, a context information indicating a situation of a passenger (page 4 of Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he storage device 8 stores the vehicle's movement history, information on acquired points of interest, and driver preference information, etc. These memory records are updated with the latest information as they become available.”; see above citations to pages 3—4 which discuss identifying the location of the vehicle and associated surrounding points of interest. The location/situation of the vehicle is also the location of the passenger which constitutes a situation of the passenger);
determining respective priorities (weighting coefficient for preference indicator as discussed below) of a plurality of surrounding search categories (strength of preference/degree of preference which is associated with points of interest) based on the context information (page 5 of Tsuyoshi “[t]he calculation control unit 7 includes an interest intensity evaluation unit (interest intensity evaluation means) 7a and a display control unit (display control means) 7b… The display control unit 7b categorizes each interest point according to the evaluation result of the interest intensity evaluation unit 7a and displays it on the display 9.”; Page 5—6 of Tsuyoshi “[i]t is known that the structure of the intensity of interest varies from person to person, and the difference in food preferences, the priority of actions such as shopping, and how to be aware of time and distance traveled vary greatly. Therefore, the strength of interest (MI) is expressed by the following equation (1). MI = K 1 x 1 + K 2 x 2 + K 3 x 3 +… + K n x n … (1) Here, x i is each index such as preference intensity, spatial distance, and temporal distance (required time), and K i represents a weighting coefficient for each index, and the composition of the weight changes depending on the situation and the person. However, the number of indices xi indicators that make up the interest (MI) is not constant, as it varies depending on how people’s preferences are categorized. For example, the degree of preference for ramen and the degree of preference for pasta are expressed separately, or they are used as a single indicator of preference for noodles in general. Furthermore, it could be said that there are infinitely many such categories.”); and
controlling a user interface to display the plurality of surrounding search categories according to the respective priorities (page 5 of Tsuyoshi “[t]he display control unit 7b categorizes each interest point according to the evaluation result of the interest intensity evaluation unit 7a and displays it on the display 9.” The weighting coefficient (e.g., a ranking) applied to the strength of preference (e.g., directed to a point of interest or group of point of interests), spatial distance, and temporal distance are used to determine interest intensity (e.g., of level of interest, MI) which is used to determine how the points of interest are displayed to the user),
wherein each of the plurality of surrounding search categories is displayed as a selectable item on a surrounding search screen, each surrounding search category corresponding to a type of place (the degree of preference is associated with a point of interest (e.g., ramen and/or pasta) or a category of point of interests (e.g., noodles) according to user preference; see above citation to page 6 of Tsuyoshi. Examiner notes the point of interest associated with the degree of preference is a type of place; see FIG. 6 which depicts the category icons displayed on display 9), and
wherein, when one of the plurality of surrounding search categories is selected, destinations corresponding to the one of the plurality of surrounding search categories are displayed (this limitation is not positively recited and is not required to be performed in order for the claim to be performed).
Regarding claim 19, Tsuyoshi discloses wherein the vehicle information includes a vehicle location information (pages 3—4 of Tsuyoshi as provided states “[t]he GPS receiver 2 receives radio signals from GPS satellites to detect the vehicle's current location and direction of travel… The sensor unit 4 is equipped with various sensors that detect the vehicle's speed, distance traveled, direction of travel, and other parameters… The communication unit (interest point detection means) 6 acquires information on specific interest points (POIs) scattered around the vehicle”), an information on whether a child lock is activated, a distance to empty (DTE) information indicating a fuel level, an information on whether a warning signal is received from the vehicle, an information on whether a wiper is in operation, an information on whether a sunroof is open or closed, or a weight of a loaded cargo.
Regarding claim 20, Tsuyoshi discloses wherein the determining the respective priorities of the plurality of surrounding search categories includes setting a priority of a first surrounding search category related to the context information among the plurality of surrounding search categories to a highest level or a lowest level (Tsuyoshi describes a weighted calculation used to determine an interest intensity among multiple points of interest where the calculation includes a weighting coefficient for the strength of preference/degree of preference which is associated with points of interest. It is implicitly understood that the weighting coefficient can be a maximum value or a minimum value according to user preference or according to behavior history information as discussed on page 7 of Tsuyoshi).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published WIPO Patent Application to Tsuyoshi (WO 2015045629 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Published US Patent Application to Hokari (US 20180232666 A1).
Regarding claim 10, while Tsuyoshi is directed to assessing an interest intensity for a plurality of points of interest, Tsuyoshi does not take into account whether or not a current time is meal time. However, Hokari, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to processing apparatus which assesses points of interest relative to a user location, teaches the deficient limitations.
For example, Hokari states the following disclosure constitutes prior art as described in Japanese Patent Application 2005-037143: “a car navigation apparatus, in order to set a route on which a number of restaurants are located along the road as a guiding route during a mealtime, in the case where a meal start time is included between a time at which the guiding route is searched for and an arrival time to a destination, searching for a route on which a larger number of restaurants are located along the road through which a user is to pass at the meal start time.” (Hokari, para. [0004]). One embodiment of the disclosure of Hokari includes “estimating a location where the mobile object that travels while carrying the user is traveling during a “mealtime” that corresponds to a period of time appropriate for meal and searching for restaurants located within a first distance from the location and located a second distance away from at least one of the point of departure and the destination of the mobile object, it becomes possible to search for a new restaurant while making a side trip from the point of departure to the destination during travel.” (Hokari, para. [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the meal-time assessment feature of Hokari in the navigational system of Tsuyoshi which is directed to ranking points of interest including restaurants. The meal-time assessment feature would work the same as combined in Tsuyoshi as it does separately. The addition of the feature would provide for the predictable result of a time-based assessment feature which is usable in identifying points of interest.
Subject Matter without a Prior Art Rejection
Claims 6—9, 11—14, and 15—17 are not rejected under the above provided prior art rejections. However, claims 1—17 are rejected under 35 US.C. 112(b) and claims 1—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Accordingly, all of the claims in the application stand rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to URSULA NORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7 AM to 4 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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/U.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights