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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed July 16, 2026. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12, and 13 have been amended. Claims 4, and 11 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, and 13 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed July 16, 2026 with respect to the previous invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered. Examiner notes the claims no long invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) due to the present amendments.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed July 16, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered.
With respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues the claimed invention is eligible subject matter because the claimed invention, as presently amended, is not directed to a mental process as the claimed invention cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Applicant supports this position by arguing the claimed invention could not be practically performed in the huma mind without the claimed hardware and “special purpose computer.”
Applicant further argues the claimed invention is eligible under Step 2A as integrated into a practical application because Applicant asserts the prior Office action did not sufficiently explain why the claimed invention does not recite integration into a practical application. Applicant argues the claimed invention comprises an improvement because the claimed invention can provide a user with a better understanding of driving range.
Applicant further argues the claimed invention through its calculation of reach probability, extraction of locations, change of display manner, and display improves functionality of the computer.
Applicant additionally argues the claimed invention does not monopolize the exception and therefore should be eligible.
Applicant similarly argues the claimed invention amounts to significantly more and is therefore eligible based on the arguments discussed with respect to Step 2A.
Applicant cites Desjardins to support their position that the claimed invention similarly improves computer technology, and further analogizes to Diamond v. Diehr.
Under Step 2B, Applicant argues the claimed invention is directed to a particular, limited application, and for reasons similar to the discussion under Step 2A, the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is directed to a determining the possibility of reaching different locations. This is accomplished through using conventional computer components, i.e., a processor, and storage, and is an example of the courts’ “apply it” standard, in that the computer hardware is merely used to implement the abstract idea. Examiner rejects Applicant’s framing that the claimed invention requires a special purpose computer merely by virtue of being programmed to execute the claimed determination.
As to Applicant’s arguments regarding improvement, the arguments presented by Applicant are evidence of improvements to the abstract idea itself, namely, how best to determine the probabilities of reaching various locations. This should be not be conflated with improvements to a specific technology or the functioning of a computer itself. Improvements to the abstract idea itself do not render a claimed invention eligible. This is similarly true regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding “significantly more.”
As to Applicant’s argument regarding monopolization, Examiner notes preemption is not determinative of eligibility.
As to Applicant’s argument regarding Desjardins, the claimed invention is distinguishable from Desjardins because Desjardins was drawn to improvements to machine learning, i.e., a specific technology, whereas the presently claimed invention is directed to improvements to the abstract idea itself as discussed above. Additionally, the holding of Diamond v. Diehr does not apply to the claimed invention because Diamond v. Diehr is useful for clarifying using a computer to implement a process does not preclude patentability. The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 do not construe the claimed use of a computer the same way. The claimed invention is ineligible because it is directed to a mental process, as opposed to Diamond v. Diehr which was not directed to a mental process. Reciting a mental process, which is then implemented using a generic computer (or similar hardware) used in routine and conventional ways is ineligible subject matter.
For similar reasons, the claimed invention is not eligible under Step 2B because the asserted improvement is for the abstract idea itself.
For at least the above, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and therefore the previous rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed July 16, 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered.
With respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claim 1, Applicant argues the cited art of record, Fisher et al., US 20130179057 A1, hereinafter referred to as Fisher, fails to explicitly disclose all of the features of claim 1, as presently amended, specifically, defining each claimed name as comprised of a character string indicative of the name of each location, calculating the reach probability based on remaining power consumption, and extracting locations each associated with a reach probability threshold. Applicant argues Fisher’s threshold does not anticipate the claimed threshold because Applicant asserts Fisher’s threshold is used for color coding and not limiting a display as claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fisher explicitly discloses a listing of a plurality of locations using letter signifiers, i.e., “A,” “B,” etc., in addition to a character string indicative of the name of each location, i.e., “123 Main St.,” “Station Name,” “Home,” etc. (See at least Fig. 29 of Fisher). Fisher further explicitly discloses calculating reach probabilities based on a remaining amount of power and consumption amount as Fisher users a current charge to determine range and an estimated range, which is analogous to a power consumption amount related to a reach probability (See at least ¶7 and 84 and Claim 11 of Fisher). Finally, Fisher performs the claimed extracting through its listing of locations with corresponding thresholds of reachability (See at least ¶84 and Figs. 18-21).
Fisher fails to explicitly disclose outputting on a map the extracted locations’ full names, as claimed, but rather uses letter signifiers from its list view in its map view. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fisher and include the feature of the claimed outputting on a map the full list names, with a reasonable expectation of success, as the claim is merely combining Fisher’s list view and map view, which involves routine skill in the art of navigation and routing display.
Fisher’s threshold is used to change color coding, however, by performing color coding with corresponding thresholds, Fisher’s color coding includes identifying, or “extracting,” locations with thresholds greater than a given threshold as well as lower than. Therefore, Fisher’s disclosure regarding thresholds encompasses the claimed extraction in response to a threshold.
The same arguments apply to independent claims 12 and 13.
With respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 2, Applicant argues the cited art of record, Fisher et al., US 20130179057 A1, and Katanoda et al., US 20200378784 A1, hereinafter referred to as Fisher, and Katanoda, respectively, fails to explicitly disclose all of the features of claim 2, because Katanoda is directed to changing the size of an icon whereas the claimed invention is directed to changing the size of a character string.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Katanoda discloses it is advantageous to change the size of displayed visual cues to communicate more advantageously with a driver. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily and unquestionably recognize the concept of changing the visual size of information on a display can apply to any type of relevant information to a driver. Katanoda is attempting to draw a driver’s eye to more desirable charging locations, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize tis teaching could apply to any typical visual information, like the name of a location, as claimed, or icon representing a location as disclosed by Fisher.
For at least the above reasons, the claims are obvious in view of the cited art of record.
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 1-3, and 5-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-3, and 5-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-13 are directed to the abstract idea of acquiring input data, and changing a display on that basis, which is an abstract idea under its broadest reasonable interpretation because the claimed invention is directed to judgment, observation, and/or evaluation. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are either directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering, outputting the results of the solution, or generic hardware recited at a high level of generality, i.e., an acquisition part, a change part, and an output part, that provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites information processing method by an information processing apparatus to cause a display device to display a reach probability of an electric mover, comprising: acquiring input data including a current location of the electric mover, a background map indicative of a region around the current location, a location list including a register of names of a plurality of locations, each of the names being composed of a character string, a remaining power amount of the electric mover, and predicted power consumption amounts each indicating an amount of power consumption predicted for movement of the electric mover from the current location to a corresponding one of the locations included in the location list; calculating, for each of the locations included in the location list, the reach probability from the current location to the location based on the remaining power amount and the predicted power consumption amount corresponding to the location; extracting, from the location list, locations each associated with a reach probability higher than a threshold; changing, for each of the locations, a display manner of the character string constituting the name of the extracted location according to the reach probability corresponding to the extracted location; and outputting a superimposed map obtained by superimposing the character string constituting the name of each of the extracted locations in the display manner on the background map.
Under it its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mental process because determining a reach probability for an electric vehicle to reach a location and changing a display manner on that basis are examples of judgments, observations, and/or evaluations as to how a display should be reflective of acquired data, and determinations made on the basis of that data, and judgments, observations, and/or evaluations made on the basis of acquired data are examples of abstract ideas. The additional element of acquiring input data is a form of data gathering which is insignificant pre-solution activity, and the additional element of outputting a map reflective of the above judgment, observation, and/or evaluation is insignificant post-solution activity.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 2, 3, and 5-10 depend on claim 1 but do not render the claimed invention eligible because they are directed to insignificant additional elements primarily directed to additional data gathering steps or mental steps directed to the above described judgments, observations, and/or evaluations.
Independent claims 12 and 13 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because the claims recite nearly identical subject matter but for insignificant differences, notably, claim 12 includes generic structure, i.e., a processor, memory, and computer, that does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, and 5-10, and 12-13 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
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.
Claims 1, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al., US 20130179057 A1, hereinafter referred to as Fisher.
As to claim 1, Fisher discloses an information processing method by an information processing apparatus to cause a display device to display a reach probability of an electric mover, comprising:
acquiring input data including a current location of the electric mover, a background map indicative of a region around the current location, a location list including a register of names of a plurality of locations, each of the names being composed of a character string, a remaining power amount of the electric mover, and predicted power consumption amounts each indicating an amount of power consumption predicted for movement of the electric mover from the current location to a corresponding one of the locations included in the location list (Electric vehicle – See at least Abstract; Current location, listing of locations found, and color-coded indications of probability of reaching locations – See at least ¶84 and Figs. 16-21; Character string indicative of location name – See at least Fig. 29);
calculating, for each of the locations included in the location list, the reach probability from the current location to the location based on the remaining power amount and the predicted power consumption amount corresponding to the location (Current charge used to determine sufficient range – See at least ¶7 and 84; Estimated range – See at least Claim 11);
extracting, from the location list, locations each associated with a reach probability higher than a threshold (Listing of locations with color-coding indicating different thresholds of reachability – See at least ¶84; Location names – See at least Figs. 18-21);
changing, for each of the locations, a display manner of the character string constituting the name of the extracted location according to the reach probability corresponding to the extracted location (Color-coded indications of probability of reaching locations – See at least ¶84 and Figs. 16-21); and
outputting a superimposed map (Display – See at least Fig. 20).
Fisher fails to explicitly disclose outputting on a map the extracted locations’ full names, as claimed, but rather uses letter signifiers from its list view in its map view. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fisher and include the feature of the claimed outputting on a map the full list names, with a reasonable expectation of success, as the claim is merely combining Fisher’s list view and map view, which involves routine skill in the art of navigation and routing display.
Independent claims 12 and 13 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, because the claims recite nearly identical subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claim 4, Fisher discloses extracting a location indicative of a reach probability higher than a threshold from the location list, wherein the superimposed map includes a character indicative of a name of the extracted location (Listing of locations with color-coding indicating different thresholds of reachability – See at least ¶84; Location names – See at least Figs. 18-21).
As to claim 11, Fisher discloses the input data further includes a remaining power amount of the electric mover and a predicted power consumption amount for a movement of the electric mover from the current location to each of the locations, the information processing method further comprising: calculating the reach probabilities on the basis of the remaining power amount and the predicted power consumption amounts (Current charge used to determine sufficient range – See at least ¶7 and 84; Estimated range – See at least Claim 11).
Claims 2, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al., US 20130179057 A1, in view of Katanoda et al., US 20200378784 A1, hereinafter referred to as Fisher, and Katanoda, respectively.
As to claim 2, Fisher fails to explicitly disclose the change of the display manner includes changing a size of the character string constituting of the name of each of the locations. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fisher and include the feature of the change of the display manner includes changing a size of the character string constituting of the name of each of the locations, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Katanoda teaches it is well-known and routine in the navigational arts to change the size of a visual cue representing a location on a map to indicate higher desirability (See at least ¶11 and 74 and Fig. 3 and 6 of Katanoda). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the color-coding of Fisher because both color-coding and altering the size of a map icon serve the same purpose of indicating desirability when determining a route.
As to claim 3, the combination of Fisher and Katanoda fails to explicitly disclose determining an initial position of the character string constituting the name of each of the locations for the background map, wherein the initial positions are determined in order from a location indicated by a character in a larger size. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fisher and include the feature of determining an initial position of the character string constituting the name of each of the locations for the background map, wherein the initial positions are determined in order from a location indicated by a character in a larger size, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Fisher necessarily requires locations of characters in order to place them on its display, and the claimed order is obvious under the “obvious to try” as there is a known set of options, i.e., larger to smaller, smaller to larger, or some combination thereof.
As to claim 9, the combination of Fisher and Katanoda fails to explicitly disclose the initial position is determined on the basis of a latitude and a longitude of each of the locations. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Fisher and Katanoda and include the feature of the initial position is determined on the basis of a latitude and a longitude of each of the locations, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily and unquestionably recognize expressing locations in terms of latitude and longitude is basic and fundamental.
Claims 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al., US 20130179057 A1, in view of Koertge et al., US 20160069700 A1, hereinafter referred to as Fisher, and Koertge, respectively.
As to claim 5, Fisher fails to explicitly disclose in generation of the superimposed map, it is determined whether the number of locations indicative of reach probabilities higher than the threshold exceeds a reference number, and in a case where the number exceeds the reference number, a priority for each of the locations is determined in order from a higher reach probability, and the superimposed map is generated on the basis of the priorities. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fisher and include the feature of in generation of the superimposed map, it is determined whether the number of locations indicative of reach probabilities higher than the threshold exceeds a reference number, and in a case where the number exceeds the reference number, a priority for each of the locations is determined in order from a higher reach probability, and the superimposed map is generated on the basis of the priorities, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Koertge teaches it is well-known and routine in the navigational arts to order possible destinations based on priorities (See at least ¶25 of Koertge), and ordering the claimed locations in order from a higher reach probability is obvious under the “obvious to try” as there is a known set of options, i.e., higher to lower, lower to larger, or some combination thereof.
As to claim 6, Fisher fails to explicitly disclose in generation of the superimposed map, it is determined whether the number of locations indicative of reach probabilities higher than the threshold exceeds a reference number, and in a case where the number exceeds the reference number, a priority for each of the locations is determined in order from a lower reach probability, and the superimposed map is generated on the basis of the priorities. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fisher and include the feature of in generation of the superimposed map, it is determined whether the number of locations indicative of reach probabilities higher than the threshold exceeds a reference number, and in a case where the number exceeds the reference number, a priority for each of the locations is determined in order from a lower reach probability, and the superimposed map is generated on the basis of the priorities, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Koertge teaches it is well-known and routine in the navigational arts to order possible destinations based on priorities (See at least ¶25 of Koertge), and ordering the claimed locations in order from a lower reach probability is obvious under the “obvious to try” as there is a known set of options, i.e., higher to lower, lower to larger, or some combination thereof.
Claims 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al., US 20130179057 A1, in view of Mayster et al., US 20210240762 A1, hereinafter referred to as Fisher, and Koertge, respectively.
As to claim 7, Fisher fails to explicitly disclose
the locations in the location list include a landmark location associated with a landmark attribute, and
the input data further includes a movement history of the electric mover, the information processing method further comprising:
determining on the basis of the movement history whether the number of visits by the electric mover to the current location exceeds a reference number of times, wherein
in generation of the superimposed map, the superimposed map is generated so as to preferentially show a character string constituting a name of a location associated with the landmark attribute over a character string constituting a name of a location not associated with the landmark attribute, in a case where the number of visits is determined to be smaller than the reference number of times.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fisher and include the feature of the above claimed indications of locations associated with a landmark based on the above considerations, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Mayster teaches it is well-known and routine in the navigational arts to consider landmark characteristics and a historical measure of visits to landmarks when providing navigational guidance (See at least ¶51 of Mayster).
As to claim 8, the combination of Fisher and Mayster fails to explicitly disclose in the generation of the superimposed map, the superimposed map is generated so as to include more characters strings respectively constituting names of locations associated with the landmark attribute than a character string constituting a name of a location not associated with the landmark attribute. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Fisher and Mayster and include the feature of in the generation of the superimposed map, the superimposed map is generated so as to include more characters strings respectively constituting names of locations associated with the landmark attribute than a character string constituting a name of a location not associated with the landmark attribute, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily and unquestionably recognize there is no purpose in returning results that do not match search criteria, i.e., desired landmarks based on the considered criteria.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al., US 20130179057 A1, in view of MacFarlane et al., US 20110055739 A1, hereinafter referred to as Fisher, and MacFarlane, respectively.
As to claim 10, Fisher fails to explicitly disclose executing a positional adjustment of the character string constituting the name of each of the locations for preventing the respective characters strings respectively constituting the names of the locations from being placed overlapped with each other on the background map. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fisher and include the feature of executing a positional adjustment of the character string constituting the name of each of the locations for preventing the respective characters strings respectively constituting the names of the locations from being placed overlapped with each other on the background map, with a reasonable expectation of success, because MacFarlane teaches it is well-known and routine in displaying navigation guidance to prevent overlap of icons (Adjustment to prevent overlap – See at least ¶38 of MacFarlane).
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.
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 Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights