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 action is in response to the applicant’s filing on December 3, 2024. Claims 1-13 are pending and are examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to Japanese Patent No. JP 2022-091693, filed June 6, 2022.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a display device to display,” “an acquisition part that,” “a change part that,” “an output part,” in claims 12 and 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-13 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 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, and a reach probability from the current location to each of the locations included in the location list; changing a display manner of a character indicative of the name of each of the locations according to the reach probabilities; and outputting a superimposed map obtained by superimposing the character indicative of the name of each of the locations in the display manner on the background map.
Under it its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mental process because changing a display manner is an example of a judgment, observation, and/or evaluation as to how a display should be reflective of acquired 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 2-11 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 judgment, observation, and/or evaluation.
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., an acquisition part, a change part, and an output part, that does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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, and a reach probability from the current location to each 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);
changing a display manner of a character indicative of the name of each of the locations according to the reach probabilities (Color-coded indications of probability of reaching locations – See at least ¶84 and Figs. 16-21); and
outputting a superimposed map obtained by superimposing the character indicative of the name of each of the locations in the display manner on the background map (Display – See at least Fig. 20).
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).
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.
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 indicative 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 indicative 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 an icon representing a location on a map to indicate higher desirability (See at least ¶11 and 74 and Fig. 3 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 indicative of 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 indicative of 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 indicative of a name of a location associated with the landmark attribute over a character indicative of 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 indicative of names of locations associated with the landmark attribute than a character indicative of 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 indicative of names of locations associated with the landmark attribute than a character indicative of 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 indicative of the name of each of the locations for preventing the respective characters indicative of 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 indicative of the name of each of the locations for preventing the respective characters indicative of 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
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