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 Application filed on March 6, 2025. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Referring to claims 1 and 15, the claims recite the limitation “..wherein an object record in the local object records database and/or the remote object records database represents information about an object having a geolocation and the geolocation of the object represented by the object record..” in lines 2-4 and lines 4-6 of the respective claims. Due to the recitation of the ‘and/or’ terminology, it is unclear as to whether or not the object records in both the local object records database and the remote object records database represent objects having a geolocation and the geolocation information of the object. Furthermore, due to the ‘and/or’ terminology, it is unclear if the object record resides in the local or remote database or if the terminology is meant to indicate that an object record in one database has a geolocation but an object record in the other database does not have a geolocation. For purposes of examination, Examiner will assume that the object in the remote object records database has a geolocation.
All claims depending from the aforenoted claims are also rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
Due to the 35 USC 112 rejections, the claims have been examined as best understood by the Examiner.
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; populating the local database with the result set; 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.
The limitations 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; 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, 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, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by at least one processor” (in claim 15) nothing in the claim limitations precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by at least one processor’ language (claim 15), the determining, comparing and filtering steps in the context of these claims encompasses the user performing the steps mentally. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional steps of 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; populating the local database with the result set.
The querying, obtaining and populating steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of querying a database for selected data, obtaining the results of the query and storing the results) and considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
The combination of these additional steps is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. the at least one processor). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the processor is a generic computer processor which performs the querying, obtaining and populating steps. Furthermore, these functions are similar to those found by the courts to be well- understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, namely the querying and obtaining steps similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A (selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display) and the populating step similar to Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. (storing and retrieving information in memory). As such, the querying, obtaining and populating steps are well understood, routine and conventional activity performed by generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 13 and 14 depend from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 2-5, 7, 8, 13 and 14 recite the same abstract idea of "mental process". Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 13 and 14 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 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 arca is represented by a polygonal shape; (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; and (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. All of these claims recite limitations that are mental steps.
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 13 and 14 do not recite any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or teach significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, claims 2-5, 7, 8, 13 and 14 are not patent eligible.
Claims 6 and 9 depend from claim 5 and thus include all the limitations of claim 5, therefore claims 6 and 9 recite the same abstract idea of "mental process". Claims 6 and 9 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; 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.
These limitations include mathematical calculations and fall under the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 6 and 9 do not recite any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or teach significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, claims 6 and 9 are not patent eligible.
Claims 6 and 9 depend from claim 5 and thus include all the limitations of claim 5, therefore claims 6 and 9 recite the same abstract idea of "mental process". Claims 6 and 9 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; 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.
These limitations include mathematical calculations and fall under the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 6 and 9 do not recite any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or teach significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, claims 6 and 9 are not patent eligible.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 9, therefore claim 10 recites the same abstract ideas of "mental process" and “mathematical concepts”. Claim 10 furthermore recites: 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, which are considered mental steps.
Claim 10 does not recite any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or teach significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 10, therefore claim 11 recites the same abstract ideas of "mental process" and “mathematical concepts”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 11 furthermore recites 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.
The removing step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of deleting data stored within a database so that the data is not considered for retrieval) and is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
The combination of this additional steps is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. the at least one processor). Accordingly, even in combination, this additional step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the processor is a generic computer processor which performs the removing step. Furthermore, these functions are similar to those found by the courts to be well- understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, namely Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log). As such, the removing step is well understood, routine and conventional activity performed by generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claim 12 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process".
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 12 furthermore recites 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.
The deleting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of deleting data stored within a database) and is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
The combination of this additional steps is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. the at least one processor). Accordingly, even in combination, this additional step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the processor is a generic computer processor which performs the deleting step. Furthermore, these functions are similar to those found by the courts to be well- understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, namely Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log). As such, the deleting step is well understood, routine and conventional activity performed by generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 in the local object records database and/or the remote object records database represents information about an object having a geolocation and the geolocation of the object represented by the object record [mapping data in geographic database 115 includes POIs, geographic coordinates, geocoding etc., para 51], 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];
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, 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], it remains silent as to the geographical search space determined as a function of a pre-determined range threshold relative to the device geolocation. 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].
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 because it would achieve predictable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the threshold distance of Cheng would provide a criteria with which the relevant mapping area of Madine is 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
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.
/MARK E HERSHLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/C.M.S/