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 .
This communication is in response to Amendment filed on April 30, 2026. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1 and 15 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Referring to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-15, Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged. As such, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of the claims is withdrawn.
Referring to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-15, Applicant argues that the claims, as amended, specifically that the dynamic and continual populating of the local database with the result set as the device geolocation state of the mobile device changes, demonstrates a practical application. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed limitation is merely storing data to the local database in response to detected geolocation changes of the user. This is considered insignificant extra solution activity is using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks such as storing data and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. As such, Examiner maintains that the claims, as amended, are not patent eligible under 101.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 1-15 as amended, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Madine/Cheng does not teach the limitation “continually and dynamically populating the local database with the result set as the device geolocation state of the mobile device changes”, as amended. However Examiner respectfully disagrees. Madine discloses a dynamic updating process 315 wherein the local cache 305 stores item detail records locally on the client side, wherein the records in the local cache that are invalid (i.e. not within a valid radius) are updated to the local cache 305 [para 70, Fig 3A, element 315], however remains silent as to the dynamic updating process 315 being a continuous process and that the validity criteria (i.e. the invalid radius- i.e. records not within a valid radius) is determined before updating the records to the local cache. Cheng discloses continually monitoring a current geolocation that indicates that a client/consumer mobile device has moved more than a threshold amount [para 43, 48, 94]. Examiner submits that the continuous monitoring of a current geolocation of a client/consumer mobile device to determine that the client/consumer mobile device has moved more than a threshold amount defines the criteria with which Madine establishes the invalidity radius criteria. Furthermore, the continuous monitoring of the current geolocation of the user reads on the ‘continually’ terminology in the claims. As such, Examiner maintains that Madine/Cheng teaches the claimed limitation, as amended.
As such, the 35 USC 103 rejections of the claims are maintained for at least the reasons stated above and further in view of the new grounds of rejection addressed below.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 15 recite:
determining a device geolocation state of the mobile device, wherein the device geolocation state corresponds at least to a device geolocation of the mobile device;
determining a first geographical search space as a function of at least the device geolocation and a pre-determined range threshold relative to the device geolocation;
querying the remote database for a localized subset of object records, wherein object records of the localized subset have corresponding geolocations that are within the first geographical search space;
obtaining a result set of object records in response to the querying;
continually and dynamically populating the local database with the result set as the device geolocation state of the mobile device changes;
determining whether the result set comprises filterable object records, wherein an object record is a filterable object record if the object record includes a filter parameter;
comparing, for at least one filterable object record, where one exists in the result set, the filter parameter, and the device geolocation state; and
if the at least one filterable object record is present in the result set and the filter parameter does not match the device geolocation state, filtering the at least one filterable object record from the local database.
Step 1: The claims as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: At least claims 1 and 15 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitations “determining a device geolocation state of the mobile device, wherein the device geolocation state corresponds at least to a device geolocation of the mobile device” and “determining a first geographical search space as a function of at least the device geolocation and a pre-determined range threshold relative to the device geolocation” are mental steps. A user can determine its current location on its mobile device and mentally determine a surrounding search area and range for which to search using these as a search criteria. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “determining whether the result set comprises filterable object records, wherein an object record is a filterable object record if the object record includes a filter parameter” is a mental step. A user can look at a set of data and determine if the data contains a specific parameter. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “comparing, for at least one filterable object record, where one exists in the result set, the filter parameter, and the device geolocation state” is a mental step. A user can mentally perform this comparison for a given set of data. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “filtering the at least one filterable object record from the local database if the at least one filterable object record is present in the result set and the filter parameter does not match the device geolocation state” is a mental step. A user can mentally select data from a set of data based on certain criteria. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
Claims 1 and 15 recite the limitations “querying the remote database for a localized subset of object records, wherein object records of the localized subset have corresponding geolocations that are within the first geographical search space” and “obtaining a result set of object records in response to the querying”.
These limitations are additional elements and are insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 15 recite the limitation “continually and dynamically populating the local database with the result set as the device geolocation state of the mobile device changes”. This is also an additional element and is using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks such as storing or simply adding computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Furthermore, Claims 1 and 15 recite the following additional elements “at least one processor”, “computer system”, “storage medium storing instructions”, “local and remote object records databases” and “mobile device”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer hardware and software components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “querying” and "obtaining” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Furthermore, the “continually and dynamically populating” limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 2-5, and 13 depend from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 2-5, and 13 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 2-5, and 13 furthermore recite:
(claim 2) wherein the device geolocation state corresponds at least to the geolocation of the mobile device and/or an orientation direction of the mobile device;
(claim 3) wherein the first geographical search space comprises a two-dimensional representation of a point or area on a surface of Earth;
(claim 4) wherein at least one of the filterable object records includes a plurality of filter parameters;
(claim 5) wherein comparing the filter parameter and the device geolocation state comprises determining whether the device geolocation state matches within each constraint specified by the filter parameter;
(claim 13) wherein filtering the at least one filterable object record from the local database comprises masking the at least one filterable object record to filter the at least one filterable object record from a subsequent local retrieval of object records;
Step 1: Claims 2-5, and 13 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 2-5, and 13 recite limitations that are abstract ideas because they depend from claim 1 that recites mental steps.
The limitation “wherein the device geolocation state corresponds at least to the geolocation of the mobile device and/or an orientation direction of the mobile device” in claim 2 further defines the device geolocation state in the “determining a device geolocation state of the mobile device” step in claim 1, which is considered as a mental step. As such, this limitation is also a mental step that can be achieved in the human mind.
The limitation “wherein the first geographical search space comprises a two-dimensional representation of a point or area on a surface of Earth” in claim 3 further defines the first geographical search area in the “determining a first geographical search area” step in claim 1, which is considered as a mental step. As such, this limitation is also a mental step that can be achieved in the human mind.
The limitation “wherein at least one of the filterable object records includes a plurality of filter parameters” in claim 4 further defines the filterable object records in the “determining whether the result set comprises filterable object records” step in claim 1, which is considered as a mental step. As such, this limitation is also a mental step that can be achieved in the human mind.
The limitation “wherein comparing the filter parameter and the device geolocation state comprises determining whether the device geolocation state matches within each constraint specified by the filter parameter” in claim 5 is a mental step. One can mentally determine whether a set of data matches a given criteria. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “wherein filtering the at least one filterable object record from the local database comprises masking the at least one filterable object record to filter the at least one filterable object record from a subsequent local retrieval of object records” in claim 13 is a mental step. One can choose to ignore certain data within a set as not importable when considering it for analysis. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claims 2-5, and 13 do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 2-5, and 13 do not recite any additional elements that would provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 2-5, and 13 as a whole are ineligible.
Claims 6-10, and 14 depend from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 6-10, and 14 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 6-10, and 14 furthermore recite:
(claim 6) wherein the constraint specified by the filter parameter of the at least one filterable object record is that a device-object distance determined between the device geolocation and the corresponding geolocation of the object represented by the at least one filterable object record is less than or equal to some maximum device-object distance;
(claim 7) wherein the constraint specified by the filter parameter of the at least one filterable object record is that the device geolocation is within a geographically-defined access area defined at least in part by the filter parameter;
(claim 8) wherein the geographically defined access area is represented by a polygonal shape;
(claim 9) wherein the constraint specified by the filter parameter of the at least one filterable object record further constrains the object represented by the at least one filterable object record to have a corresponding geolocation within a limited range of angles around the object represented by the at least one filterable object record defined by an object access angle range;
(claim 10) filtering the local database based on a bearing of objects relative to the mobile device from a determined location of the mobile device to the location of those geolocated objects in the local database; and comparing the bearing to access characteristics associated with any such geolocated objects that comprise an access characteristic;
(claim 14) wherein the filter parameter represents one or more of an access range limit, a geographically-defined closed area, and/or an object access angle range.
Step 1: Claims 6-10, and 14 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 6-10, and 14 recite limitations that are abstract ideas because they depend from claim 1 that recite mental steps.
The limitations “(claim 6) wherein the constraint specified by the filter parameter of the at least one filterable object record is that a device-object distance determined between the device geolocation and the corresponding geolocation of the object represented by the at least one filterable object record is less than or equal to some maximum device-object distance”, “(claim 7) wherein the constraint specified by the filter parameter of the at least one filterable object record is that the device geolocation is within a geographically-defined access area defined at least in part by the filter parameter” , “(claim 8) wherein the geographically defined access area is represented by a polygonal shape” and “(claim 9) wherein the constraint specified by the filter parameter of the at least one filterable object record further constrains the object represented by the at least one filterable object record to have a corresponding geolocation within a limited range of angles around the object represented by the at least one filterable object record defined by an object access angle range” further define the constraint specified by the filter parameter in the “determining whether the device geolocation state matches within each constraint specified by the filter parameter” step in claim 5, which is considered as a mental step. As such, these limitations are also mental steps that can be achieved in the human mind.
The limitation “filtering the local database based on a bearing of objects relative to the mobile device from a determined location of the mobile device to the location of those geolocated objects in the local database; and comparing the bearing to access characteristics associated with any such geolocated objects that comprise an access characteristic” in claim 10 are mental steps. A person can review stored data and select and compare the data based on certain chosen criteria. As such, these limitations can be achieved in the human mind.
The limitation “wherein the filter parameter represents one or more of an access range limit, a geographically-defined closed area, and/or an object access angle range” in claim 14 further defines the filter parameter in the “determining whether the result set comprises filterable object records” step in claim 1, which is considered as a mental step. As such, these limitations are also mental steps that can be achieved in the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claims 6-10 and 14 do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 6-10 and 14 do not recite any additional elements that would provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 6-10, and 14 as a whole are ineligible.
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and thus include all the limitations of claim 10, therefore claim 11 recites the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claim 11 furthermore recites:
(claim 11) filtering the local database by removing those geolocated objects from the local database if a determined bearing from the mobile device to the object indicates that the mobile device is outside the object access angle range of the object.
Step 1: Claim 11 as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claim 11 recites limitations that are abstract ideas because it depends from claim 10 that recites mental steps.
Step 2A prong 2:
The limitation “filtering the local database by removing those geolocated objects from the local database if a determined bearing from the mobile device to the object indicates that the mobile device is outside the object access angle range of the object”. This is an additional element and is using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks such as deleting data after the fact to an abstract idea (mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Step 2B:
Furthermore, the “removing” limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claim 12 recites the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claim 12 furthermore recites:
(claim 12) wherein filtering the at least one filterable object record from the local database comprises deleting the at least one filterable object record from the local database.
Step 1: Claim 12 as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claim 12 recites limitations that are abstract ideas because it depends from claim 1 that recites mental steps.
Step 2A prong 2:
The limitation “wherein filtering the at least one filterable object record from the local database comprises deleting the at least one filterable object record from the local database”. This is an additional element and is using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks such as deleting data after the fact to an abstract idea (mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Step 2B:
Furthermore, the “deleting” limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory} above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to place them within the four statutory categories of the invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0059353 by Madine et al (hereafter Madine), and further in view of US 2015/0269624 by Cheng et al (hereafter Cheng).
Referring to claim 1, Madine discloses a method [Abstract] for populating a local object records database [local cache 305, i.e. local to UE 101 executing on client application 107, para 66, Fig 3A] from a remote object records database [geographic database 115 is a master database that stores POI data records, para 59-65, Fig 1], wherein an object record represents information about an object having a geolocation and the geolocation of the object is represented by the object record, and wherein an object record may be present in the local object records database, the remote object records database or both [mapping data in geographic database 115 includes POIs, geographic coordinates, geocoding etc., para 51], and wherein the local database is hosted on a mobile device [cache 305 is local to user equipment UE 101 that executes client application 107 installed on a mobile phone, para 49, Fig 1] and wherein geolocations represent locations relative to points and/or regions relative to a geographic range of the object records of the remote database [wherein the mapping data in geographic database 115 includes points of interest (POIs), geographic coordinates and geocoding (reads on: locations relative to points)], the method comprising the steps of:
determining a device geolocation state of the mobile device, wherein the device geolocation state corresponds at least to a device geolocation of the mobile device [user equipment UE 101 executes client application 107 installed on a mobile phone, para 49, Fig 1; UE 101 sensors 111 (e.g. GPS receivers) collect contextual information such as current location for presenting targeted map displays, para 50];
determining a first geographical search space as a function of at least the device geolocation [wherein a targeted map is displayed by defining a target map object with specified parameters including a map area of interest, POIs to be presented on the targeted map display etc., para 32; wherein a relevant mapping area (reads on: geographical search space) of the targeted map displayed is defined based on a portion of the map displayed in client UE 301, the relevant mapping area including descriptions/content of relevant map items (e.g. as determined by the parameters specified in the targeted map object used to generate display), para 66-67, Fig 3A, element 307; the relevant mapping area is provided as contextual information to the targeted mapping platform 103 and used to request content tailored to the requested targeted map object, para 68; wherein the contextual information collected by sensors 111 are used to present targeted map displays, para 50];
querying the remote database for a localized subset of object records, wherein object records of the localized subset have corresponding geolocations that are within the first geographical search space [calls are made to the targeted mapping platform 103 in response to requests from client UI 301 to retrieve content items assembled from a plurality of data sources tailored to the requested target map object, para 67-68, Fig 3A, element 309; para 66, geographic database 115 is a master database that stores POI data records, para 59-65];
obtaining a result set of object records in response to the querying [in response to the calls, targeted mapping platform evaluates the parameters specified in the targeted map object associated with the request along with the provided contextual information and relevant mapping area to identify item detail records responsive to the request, para 69, Fig 3A, element 311];
dynamically populating the local database with the result set [local cache 305 (local to UE 101 executing on client application 107, para 66) stores item detail records locally on the client side in dynamic updating process 315, wherein the records in the local cache that are invalid (i.e. not within a valid radius) are updated to the local cache 305, para 70; ‘items to add’ to cache, Fig 3A, element 315];
determining whether the result set comprises filterable object records, wherein an object record is a filterable object record if the object record includes a filter parameter [targeted map object includes set of parameters including validity criteria such as an expiration period for retrieved information (time to live) and an area in which the retrieved information is valid such as a radius from a location, para 32-38];
comparing, for at least one filterable object record, where one exists in the result set, the filter parameter, and the device geolocation state [determination as to whether any of the records present in the local cache are still valid and not expired and/or within a valid radius, para 70, Fig 3A, element 313]; and
if the at least one filterable object record is present in the result set and the filter parameter does not match the device geolocation state, filtering the at least one filterable object record from the local database [wherein if the records are invalid they can be removed or updated, para 70, Fig 3A, element 315; para 102].
Referring to claim 1, while Madine discloses all of the above claimed subject matter, and also discloses that a relevant mapping area (geographical search space) of a targeted map displayed is defined to search the targeted mapping platform 103 to request content tailored to the requested targeted map object [para 66-68, Fig 3A, element 307], and that the local cache 305 is dynamically updated in response to records being determined to be invalid (i.e. not within a valid radius) [para 70, Fig 3A].
However, Madine remains silent as to the geographical search space determined as a function of a pre-determined range threshold relative to the device geolocation; and continually determining that a device geolocation state of a mobile device has changed.
Cheng discloses that geolocated offers can be requested that include an identifier of a current geographic location or an identifier of a geofence with respect to a consumer mobile device moving more than a threshold distance from one area to another [para 48-49]; and continually monitoring a current geolocation that indicates that a client/consumer mobile device has moved more than a threshold amount [para 43, 48, 94].
Madine and Cheng are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- querying of geocoded information. 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 definition of the relevant mapping area of Madine to include the threshold distance of a current geographic location or geofence of Cheng, and to modify the validity radius criteria of Madine to include the indication of the geolocation of the client/mobile device of Cheng moving more than a threshold amount, because it would achieve predictable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make these modifications because the threshold distance of Cheng would provide a criteria with which the relevant mapping area and radius validity criteria of Madine are defined.
Referring to claim 15, the limitations of the claim are similar to those of claim 1 in the form of a computer readable storage medium storing instructions [Madine, para 149, Fig 9, element 908] executed by at least one processor of a computer system [processor 902, para 144, Fig 9]. As such, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Referring to claim 2, Madine/Cheng discloses that the device geolocation state corresponds at least to the geolocation of the mobile device and/or an orientation direction of the mobile device [Madine, geocoding, para 51].
Referring to claim 3, Madine/Cheng discloses that the first geographical search space comprises a two-dimensional representation of a point or area on a surface of Earth [Madine, displayed map, para 67].
Referring to claim 4, Madine/Cheng discloses that at least one of the filterable object records includes a plurality of filter parameters [Madine, parameters, para 32-38].
Referring to claim 5, Madine/Cheng discloses that comparing the filter parameter and the device geolocation state comprises determining whether the device geolocation state matches within each constraint specified by the filter parameter [Madine, para 69, Fig 3A, element 311].
Referring to claim 6, Madine/Cheng discloses that the constraint specified by the filter parameter of the at least one filterable object record is that a device-object distance determined between the device geolocation and the corresponding geolocation of the object represented by the at least one filterable object record is less than or equal to some maximum device-object distance [Cheng, threshold distance, para 48].
Referring to claim 7, Madine/Cheng discloses that the constraint specified by the filter parameter of the at least one filterable object record is that the device geolocation is within a geographically-defined access area defined, at least in part, by the filter parameter [Cheng, threshold distance, para 48].
Referring to claim 8, Madine/Cheng discloses that the geographically-defined access area is represented by a polygonal shape [Cheng, para 32, 52].
Referring to claim 9, Madine/Cheng discloses that the constraint specified by the filter parameter of the at least one filterable object record further constrains the object represented by the at least one filterable object record to have a corresponding geolocation within a limited range of angles around the object represented by the at least one filterable object record defined by an object access angle range [Cheng, determination whether a current location is within a geofence based on summing angles, para 52].
Referring to claim 10, Madine/Cheng discloses filtering the local database based on a bearing of objects relative to the mobile device from a determined location of the mobile device to the location of those geolocated objects in the local database; and comparing the bearing to access characteristics associated with any such geolocated objects that comprise an access characteristic [Cheng, determination whether a current location is within a geofence based on summing angles, para 52].
Referring to claim 11, Madine/Cheng discloses filtering the local database by removing those geolocated objects from the local database if a determined bearing from the mobile device to the object indicates that the mobile device is outside the object access angle range of the object [Cheng, para 48-50].
Referring to claim 12, Madine/Cheng discloses that filtering the at least one filterable object record from the local database comprises deleting the at least one filterable object record from the local database [Madine, removing records in local cache, para 70].
Referring to claim 14, Madine/Cheng discloses that the filter parameter represents one or more of an access range limit, a geographically-defined closed area, and/or an object access angle range [Cheng, para 48].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madine, in view of Cheng, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0204019 by Lauterbach et al (hereafter Lauterbach).
Referring to claim 13, Madine/Cheng discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses that the records in the local cache can be removed or updated if the records are invalid [Madine, para 70, Fig 3A, element 315; para 102], however remains silent as to the filtering specifically including masking the records. Lauterbach discloses generating a filtered surfel map by hiding surfels that are determined to be unreliable [para 58].
Madine, Cheng and Lauterbach are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- displaying map data. 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 definition of the relevant mapping area of Madine to include the hiding of invalid surfels (objects) in the surfel map of Lauterbach because it would achieve predictable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the hiding of the invalid surfel objects of Lauterbach correlates to the filtering of the expired items of Madine and further refines the type of filtering disclosed by Madine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bitonti et al (US 20090281722) directed to: caching received POI data with existing POI data and maps and removing expired time-sensitive POI data to display current POI information on a display device [Abstract, para 6, 36; Fig 3-4 and related portions of specification];
Upstill et al (US 8239130) directed to: identifying one or more points of interest located within a zone of interest, determining, for each of the identified POIs, a distance between the mobile device and the respective POI, selecting one or more of the identified POIs based on the distances, and displaying information identifying the selected POIs on a user interface of the mobile device [Abstract], precaching of interesting POI information so that the data is immediately available to the user [col 3, lines 38-59; Fig 2-6, 9 and related portions of specification;
Yue et al (US 2025/0217361) directed to: geospatial query caching [entire document].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERYL M SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4018. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. 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.
CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/C.M.S//AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights