DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
YThe 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
This is a first office action for application Serial No. 18/978,381 filed on 12/12/2024. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1 – 20 are directed to the abstract idea of an idea of itself and/or certain methods of organizing human activities as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite a method (and corresponding system and non-transitory computer readable medium) comprising accessing user profile data, determining a destination of interest based on the user profile data, detecting a first threshold distance to the destination, displaying media on a device, detecting a second threshold distance to the destination, displaying second media on the device. These steps relate to an idea of itself and/or certain methods of organizing human activities which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts such as “collecting information (e.g. accessing user profile data, detecting a distance to a destination), analyzing it (e.g. determining a destination of interest from user profile data, determining whether a device is within a first and second threshold distance of a destination), and “displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g. displaying first and second media based on the distance determinations)," as described in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A. 830 F. 3d 1350. As such, the description in claims 1-20 of collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is an abstract idea (Note: The fact that the recited claims does not expressly display information is not determinative to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Rather, the abstract idea is identified in the step of analyzing information. If the claim as a whole, is limited to, “collecting, analyzing, and displaying information,” without “significantly more” the claim is an abstract idea as held by the Federal Circuit in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A. 830 F. 3d 1350).
Moreover, the specification does not provide any particulars of the claim elements that would alter the claims from being interpreted as directed to an abstraction of “collecting information (e.g. accessing user profile data, detecting a distance to a destination), analyzing it (e.g. determining a destination of interest from user profile data, determining whether a device is within a first and second threshold distance of a destination), and “displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g. displaying first and second media based on the distance determinations)." As such, the claims do 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. The claims and their dependent claims recite the additional limitations of a client device, a display, a memory (non-transitory machine-readable storage medium), a processor. These claim elements, however, are recited at such a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. See also e.g. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that generic computer components such as a communications network, including an email server, telephone network, telephone unit and general purpose computers performing generic computer functions do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement, but is merely routine and conventional and that implementation of the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of the computer itself). See also e.g. at least Alice Corp v. CLS Bank, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2359 (describing that the use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions, is well understood, routine and conventional).
The use of generic computer components to store, process and transmit information through an unspecified interface does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the recited elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2-7, 8-14, and 16-20 are dependent on claims 1, 8, and 15 and elaborate on the same abstract idea of the independent claims without adding significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite the same abstract idea of “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.”
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivedi (US 2017/0045364 A1) in view of Elliott (US 9,459,115 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Trivedi discloses a method (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 4-5, 7, and related text) comprising:
accessing, from a client device, user profile data (e.g. at least user profiles, see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 18, 27, Fig. 1-4, and related text);
determining a destination of interest based on the user profile data (id., dynamically identifying approaching POIs to the user based on a user profile, including user-defined POI policies);
detecting the client device within a first threshold distance of the destination of interest, the first threshold distance from the destination of interest being associated with first media content (see e.g. at least ¶ 46, 50, 53, 56, 58, Fig. 5-8, and related text, determining approaching point of interest based on positional information and user defined point of interest policy, and correlating approaching point of interest with travel information and metadata associated with the approaching point of interest); and
causing display of the first media content at the client device (id., displaying navigational information including travel information and metadata associated with the approaching point of interest per the user’s defined point of interest policy).
Additionally, Elliott teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Trivedi including namely: detecting a client device within a second threshold distance of the destination of interest, the second threshold distance being associated with second media content (see e.g. at least 4:46-53, 5:56-64, Fig. 4A-4B, and related text); and
causing display of the second media content at the client device (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Trivedi by detecting the client device within a second threshold distance of the destination of interest, the second threshold distance being associated with second media content; and causing display of the second media content at the client device as taught by Elliott in order to enable the user to have a clear visual view of the portion of the route when compared to the 3D buildings that may obscure the route as compared with the display shown at a first distance (Elliott: 4:54-5:15).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Trivedi teaches that the causing display of the first media item at the client device includes:
determining a direction of travel based on a location of the client device and the destination of interest (Trivedi: see e.g. at least ¶ 31, 52, 54, Fig. 6, 8, and related text; Elliott: see e.g. at least 4:46-53, 5:56-64, Fig. 4A-4B, and related text); and
generating the first media item based on the direction of travel (id.).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Trivedi teaches that the generating the first media item based on the direction of travel includes:
selecting a graphical symbol from among a database of graphical symbols based on the direction of travel (Trivedi: see e.g. at least Fig. 1-2, 6-8, and related text; Elliott: see e.g. at least Fig. 2-12, and related text).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Trivedi teaches:
detecting, at the client device, a display of signage within image data displayed at the client device (Trivedi: see e.g. at least Fig. 6-8, and related text; Elliott: see e.g. at least Fig. 3-12, 16, and related text); and
generating the first media item based on the display of the signage (id.).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Trivedi teaches that the display of the signage comprises one or more attributes (Trivedi: see e.g. at least Fig. 6-8, and related text; Elliott: see e.g. at least Fig. 3-12, 16, and related text), and wherein the generating the media item includes:
generating the first media item based on the one or more attributes of the display of the signage (id.).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Trivedi teaches that the destination of interest is a first destination of interest within a geo-fenced area, the geo-fenced area includes a plurality of destinations of interest (Trivedi: see e.g. at least ¶ 46, 50, Fig. 4-5, and related text), and the method further comprises:
selecting the first destination of interest from among the plurality of destinations of interest based on the user profile information (id.).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Trivedi teaches that the accessing the user profile data from the client device includes:
detecting the client device within a geo-fence (Trivedi: see e.g. at least ¶ 46, 50, Fig. 4-5, and related text); and
accessing the user profile data responsive to the detecting the client device within the geo-fence (id.).
Regarding claim 8, Trivedi discloses a system (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 3, and related text) comprising:
a memory (e.g. at least memory 313, see e.g. at least Fig. 3, and related text); and
at least one hardware processor coupled to the memory and comprising instructions (e.g. at least controller 303, id.) that causes the system to perform operations comprising:
accessing, from a client device, user profile data (e.g. at least user profiles, see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 18, 27, Fig. 1-4, and related text);
determining a destination of interest based on the user profile data (id., dynamically identifying approaching POIs to the user based on a user profile, including user-defined POI policies);
detecting the client device within a first threshold distance of the destination of interest, the first threshold distance from the destination of interest being associated with first media content (see e.g. at least ¶ 46, 50, 53, 56, 58, Fig. 5-8, and related text, determining approaching point of interest based on positional information and user defined point of interest policy, and correlating approaching point of interest with travel information and metadata associated with the approaching point of interest); and
causing display of the first media content at the client device (id., displaying navigational information including travel information and metadata associated with the approaching point of interest per the user’s defined point of interest policy).
Additionally, Elliott teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Trivedi including namely: detecting a client device within a second threshold distance of the destination of interest, the second threshold distance being associated with second media content (see e.g. at least 4:46-53, 5:56-64, Fig. 4A-4B, and related text); and
causing display of the second media content at the client device (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Trivedi by detecting the client device within a second threshold distance of the destination of interest, the second threshold distance being associated with second media content; and causing display of the second media content at the client device as taught by Elliott in order to enable the user to have a clear visual view of the portion of the route when compared to the 3D buildings that may obscure the route as compared with the display shown at a first distance (Elliott: 4:54-5:15).
Regarding claim 15, Trivedi discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 3, and related text) that, when executed by one or more processors of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising:
accessing, from a client device, user profile data (e.g. at least user profiles, see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 18, 27, Fig. 1-4, and related text);
determining a destination of interest based on the user profile data (id., dynamically identifying approaching POIs to the user based on a user profile, including user-defined POI policies);
detecting the client device within a first threshold distance of the destination of interest, the first threshold distance from the destination of interest being associated with first media content (see e.g. at least ¶ 46, 50, 53, 56, 58, Fig. 5-8, and related text, determining approaching point of interest based on positional information and user defined point of interest policy, and correlating approaching point of interest with travel information and metadata associated with the approaching point of interest); and
causing display of the first media content at the client device (id., displaying navigational information including travel information and metadata associated with the approaching point of interest per the user’s defined point of interest policy).
Additionally, Elliott teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Trivedi including namely: detecting a client device within a second threshold distance of the destination of interest, the second threshold distance being associated with second media content (see e.g. at least 4:46-53, 5:56-64, Fig. 4A-4B, and related text); and
causing display of the second media content at the client device (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Trivedi by detecting the client device within a second threshold distance of the destination of interest, the second threshold distance being associated with second media content; and causing display of the second media content at the client device as taught by Elliott in order to enable the user to have a clear visual view of the portion of the route when compared to the 3D buildings that may obscure the route as compared with the display shown at a first distance (Elliott: 4:54-5:15).
Claims 9-14 and 16-20 recite substantially similar subject matter as claims 2-7, but in system and non-transitory computer readable medium form. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 2-7 above
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662