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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-10 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are cancelled from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 March 2023.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 7 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “wherein the determining whether” appears to be a typo graphical error and should be “wherein the determination of whether”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “wherein the displaying the information” appears to be a typo graphical error and should be “wherein the displaying of the information”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is further objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “wherein the changing the camera angle” appears to be a typo graphical error and should be “wherein the changing of the camera angle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
Independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. Independent claim 1 recite determining whether an event related to an angle change has occurred based on a measured location. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a computing system”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as event data, camera angle data, and measured location data could determine whether an event related to an angle change has occurred based on a measured location. The mere nominal recitation of “a computing system” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claim recite the additional limitations/elements of displaying a navigation screen related to a first camera angle; changing a camera angle of the navigation screen from the first camera angle to a second camera angle based on determination that the event related to the angle change has occurred; and displaying information related to the event, and a computing system. The displaying and changing steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a computing system is recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the displaying and changing steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-10 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-10are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezaki (US 20200326850 A1) in view of Takiwaki et al (US 20210144301 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Ezaki discloses a method for providing a navigation service (see at least [0036-0037]), the method being performed by a computing system (see at least [0036-0037]), the method comprising: displaying a navigation screen related to a first camera angle (see at least [0156], [0183], and [claim 12]);
However, Ezaki do not specifically disclose determining whether an event related to an angle change has occurred based on a measured location; changing a camera angle of the navigation screen from the first camera angle to a second camera angle based on determination that the event related to the angle change has occurred; and displaying information related to the event.
Takiwaki teaches whether an event related to an angle change has occurred based on a measured location (see at least [0026], [0072], [0068], [0093-0095], and [Fig. 2]); changing a camera angle of the navigation screen from the first camera angle to a second camera angle based on determination that the event related to the angle change has occurred (see at least [0026], [0072], [0068], [0093-0095], and [Fig. 2]); and displaying information related to the event (see at least [0026], [0072], [0068], [0093-0095], and [Fig. 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Ezaki, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Takiwaki of determining whether an event related to an angle change has occurred based on a measured location; changing a camera angle of the navigation screen from the first camera angle to a second camera angle based on determination that the event related to the angle change has occurred; and displaying information related to the event. This would be done to appropriately detect the scene desired by the viewer from the captured images in the large amount of data (see Takiwaki para 0004).
With respect to claim 10, Ezaki do not specifically disclose wherein the determining whether the event related to the angle change has occurred includes determining that the event has occurred when the measured location is included in a location range related to an access road, and wherein the displaying the information related to the event includes displaying a guidance line related to the access road.
Takiwaki teaches wherein the determining whether the event related to the angle change has occurred includes determining that the event has occurred when the measured location is included in a location range related to an access road (see at least [0026], [0072], [0068], [0093-0095], and [Fig. 2]), and wherein the displaying the information related to the event includes displaying a guidance line related to the access road (see at least [0026], [0072], [0068], [0093-0095], and [Fig. 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Ezaki, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Takiwaki wherein the determining whether the event related to the angle change has occurred includes determining that the event has occurred when the measured location is included in a location range related to an access road, and wherein the displaying the information related to the event includes displaying a guidance line related to the access road. This would be done to appropriately detect the scene desired by the viewer from the captured images in the large amount of data (see Takiwaki para 0004).
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezaki (US 20200326850 A1) in view of Takiwaki et al (US 20210144301 A1) in view of Park (US 20220292971 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Ezaki as modified by Takiwaki do not specifically teach wherein the determining whether the event related to the angle change has occurred includes determining that the event has occurred when the measured location is included in a location range related to a parking lot, and wherein the displaying the information related to the event includes displaying information related to the parking lot.
Park teaches wherein the determining whether the event related to the angle change has occurred includes determining that the event has occurred when the measured location is included in a location range related to a parking lot (see at least 0272-0275], [0281-0282], and [0433-0434]), and wherein the displaying the information related to the event includes displaying information related to the parking lot (see at least 0272-0275], [0281-0282], and [0433-0434]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Ezaki as modified by Takiwaki, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Park wherein the determining whether the event related to the angle change has occurred includes determining that the event has occurred when the measured location is included in a location range related to a parking lot, and wherein the displaying the information related to the event includes displaying information related to the parking lot. This would be done to improve guidance of vehicle when providing parking lot guidance service (see Park para 0010).
With respect to claim 3, Ezaki as modified by Takiwaki do not specifically teach wherein the information related to the parking lot includes a parking lot drawing, and wherein at the second camera angle, the parking lot drawing is displayed in a plan view on the navigation screen.
Park teaches wherein the information related to the parking lot includes a parking lot drawing (see at least 0272-0275], [0281-0282], and [0433-0434]), and wherein at the second camera angle, the parking lot drawing is displayed in a plan view on the navigation screen (see at least 0272-0275], [0281-0282], and [0433-0434]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Ezaki as modified by Takiwaki, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Park wherein the information related to the parking lot includes a parking lot drawing, and wherein at the second camera angle, the parking lot drawing is displayed in a plan view on the navigation screen. This would be done to improve guidance of vehicle when providing parking lot guidance service (see Park para 0010).
With respect to claim 4, Ezaki as modified by Takiwaki do not specifically teach wherein the information related to the parking lot includes a parking lot drawing, and wherein in the parking lot drawing, an available parking space is visualized using a first graphic element.
Park teaches Takiwaki do not specifically teach wherein the information related to the parking lot includes a parking lot drawing, and wherein in the parking lot drawing, an available parking space is visualized using a first graphic element (see at least 0272-0275], [0281-0282], and [0433-0434]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Ezaki as modified by Takiwaki, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Park wherein the information related to the parking lot includes a parking lot drawing, and wherein in the parking lot drawing, an available parking space is visualized using a first graphic element. This would be done to improve guidance of vehicle when providing parking lot guidance service (see Park para 0010).
With respect to claim 5, Ezaki as modified by Takiwaki do not specifically teach wherein in the parking lot drawing, a parking space for a driver requiring a social consideration is visualized using a second graphic element.
Park teaches wherein in the parking lot drawing, a parking space for a driver requiring a social consideration is visualized using a second graphic element (see at least 0272-0275], [0281-0282], and [0433-0434]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Ezaki as modified by Takiwaki, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Park wherein in the parking lot drawing, a parking space for a driver requiring a social consideration is visualized using a second graphic element. This would be done to improve guidance of vehicle when providing parking lot guidance service (see Park para 0010).
With respect to claim 6, Ezaki as modified by Takiwaki do not specifically teach after the displaying the information related to the event, changing the camera angle of the navigation screen to the first camera angle after a predetermined time duration has elapsed.
Park teaches after the displaying the information related to the event, changing the camera angle of the navigation screen to the first camera angle after a predetermined time duration has elapsed (see at least 0272-0275], [0281-0282], and [0433-0434]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Ezaki as modified by Takiwaki, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Park after the displaying the information related to the event, changing the camera angle of the navigation screen to the first camera angle after a predetermined time duration has elapsed. This would be done to improve guidance of vehicle when providing parking lot guidance service (see Park para 0010).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezaki (US 20200326850 A1) in view of Takiwaki et al (US 20210144301 A1) in view of Baalke et al (US 11,995,599 B1).
With respect to claim 7, Ezaki as modified by Takiwaki do not specifically teach wherein the determining whether the event related to the angle change has occurred includes determining that the event has occurred when the measured location is included in a location range related to an elevator, and wherein the changing the camera angle of the navigation screen includes zooming out the first camera angle to change the camera angle of the navigation screen to the second camera angle.
Baalke teaches wherein the determining whether the event related to the angle change has occurred includes determining that the event has occurred when the measured location is included in a location range related to an elevator (see at least [Col. 6 lines 14-29], col. 8 lines 28-56], and [Col. 41 line 51-Col 42 line 29]), and wherein the changing the camera angle of the navigation screen includes zooming out the first camera angle to change the camera angle of the navigation screen to the second camera angle (see at least [Col. 6 lines 14-29], col. 8 lines 28-56], and [Col. 41 line 51-Col 42 line 29]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Ezaki as modified by Takiwaki, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Baalke wherein the determining whether the event related to the angle change has occurred includes determining that the event has occurred when the measured location is included in a location range related to an elevator, and wherein the changing the camera angle of the navigation screen includes zooming out the first camera angle to change the camera angle of the navigation screen to the second camera angle. This would be done to improve indoor navigation and indoor services (see Baalke col. 1 lines 58-67).
With respect to claim 8, Ezaki as modified by Takiwaki do not specifically teach wherein the displaying the information related to the event includes displaying a floor where a user is located or an information on the floor.
Baalke teaches wherein the displaying the information related to the event includes displaying a floor where a user is located or an information on the floor (Col. 5 line 39-67] and [Col. 42 lines 3-29]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Ezaki as modified by Takiwaki, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Baalke wherein the displaying the information related to the event includes displaying a floor where a user is located or an information on the floor. This would be done to improve indoor navigation and indoor services (see Baalke Col. 1 lines 58-67).
With respect to claim 9, Ezaki as modified by Takiwaki do not specifically teach wherein the displaying the information related to the event includes: identifying a floor where a destination is located; and displaying information including the floor or a travel route to the destination.
Baalke teaches wherein the displaying the information related to the event includes: identifying a floor where a destination is located (Col. 5 line 39-67] and [Col. 42 lines 3-29]); and displaying information including the floor or a travel route to the destination(Col. 5 line 39-67] and [Col. 42 lines 3-29]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Ezaki as modified by Takiwaki, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Baalke wherein the displaying the information related to the event includes: identifying a floor where a destination is located; and displaying information including the floor or a travel route to the destination. This would be done to improve indoor navigation and indoor services (see Baalke Col. 1 lines 58-67).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights