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 .
Claims 1-17 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-17 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds a 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Under Step 1:
Claim 1 is a method claim reciting a computer-implemented method. Thus, Claim 1 falls within the statutory category of a process. Step 1: Yes.
Under Step 2A - Prong 1:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claim is analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter falling within one of the recognized groupings of abstract ideas: mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 1 recites: A computer implemented method for forming or modifying a customized electronic map of a combined electronic map for an optimized way finding application, which the combined electronic map further comprises an electronic outdoor map, the method comprises:
receiving a floor plan or floor plans of different floors of a facility or a ground plan of an outdoor area in electronic form;
forming movement paths from a plurality of points to a plurality of points for forming a movement path network to the floor plan or the floor plans or the ground plan;
adding movement information to the floor plan or the floor plans or the ground plan; and
adding additional information to the floor plan or the floor plans or the ground plan, wherein the additional information comprises a place where a route in the combined electronic map is configured to be continued between the outdoor map and the customized electronic map;
wherein the route to be displayed is configured to continue from the outdoor map into the customized electronic indoor map or from the customized electronic indoor map to the outdoor map.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing emphasized limitations constitute a mental process because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they encompass observations, evaluations, judgments, and organizational steps that can practically be performed in the human mind, including with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer and electronic-map terminology. Specifically, a person can review a floor plan or ground plan; identify a plurality of locations or points on the plan; draw or otherwise identify movement paths connecting the points; annotate the plan with information concerning where or how a person may move; identify and mark a building entrance, exit, gate, door, parking entrance, or other transition location; and determine that a route may continue from an outdoor map or area into an indoor floor plan through the marked transition location. These activities involve reviewing information shown on a map, evaluating possible movement between locations, organizing the locations into paths, and recording conclusions or judgments on the map. Such activities can practically be performed by a human using a printed floor plan, an outdoor map, and a pencil. The claim does not recite a particular computer algorithm for forming the movement-path network, a particular electronic-map data structure, a specific technique for associating the indoor and outdoor maps, a particular graphical rendering process, or a technological mechanism that limits how the movement paths and additional information are formed or added. Instead, the claim broadly recites the desired results of forming movement paths, adding movement information, and marking a location at which one route continues between two maps. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance in the human mind or by a person using pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components or a generic computer environment, the limitation falls within the mental-process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Accordingly, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of reviewing and organizing map information to create movement paths and identify a transition location between mapped areas, which is a mental process.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claim is analyzed as a whole to determine whether any additional elements beyond the identified mental process integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations beyond the identified mental process include: “a computer implemented method”; “a customized electronic map”; “a combined electronic map”; “an optimized way finding application”; “an electronic outdoor map”; receiving the floor plan or ground plan “in electronic form”; and configuring a route “to be displayed.”
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that these additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application. The limitation “a computer implemented method” merely instructs that the mental process be performed using a computer. Claim 1 does not recite a particular computer, processor architecture, specialized mapping machine, mapping sensor, or non-generic hardware arrangement that is integral to performance of the claimed method. The computer is used only as a tool for performing the abstract steps of reviewing map information, organizing locations into paths, and adding annotations or transition information. Merely implementing a mental process using a generic computer does not impose a meaningful limitation on the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The recitations of an “electronic map,” “combined electronic map,” “electronic outdoor map,” and “optimized way finding application” merely place the abstract process in the technological environment of electronic mapping and navigation. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to electronic-map storage, electronic-map rendering, computer memory use, graphical processing, routing-network generation, computer speed, computer accuracy, or another technological function. The claim instead uses electronic maps as the information on which the mental process is performed. Generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The limitation of receiving a floor plan or ground plan in electronic form merely obtains the information needed to perform the abstract process. The claim does not recite a particular scanning operation, image-recognition process, sensor, image-conversion process, file structure, or other technological technique for receiving the plan. The plan is merely the source data that is subsequently reviewed and organized. Thus, receiving the plan in electronic form amounts to insignificant data-gathering activity used to supply information to the abstract mental process. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The limitation that the route is configured to be displayed merely presents or makes available the result of the map-organization process. The claim does not recite a particular display technology, a specific graphical rendering technique, an improved user interface, or a specific manner in which the electronic route is displayed. Merely displaying or preparing to display the result of information collection and analysis is insignificant post-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claim does not recite a specific technological improvement in the functioning of a computer or in another technology or technical field. Although creating an electronic map may be useful, the claim does not recite how the computer itself is improved or how electronic-map technology is technically improved. The asserted improvement is the content and organization of the map namely, the movement paths, movement information, and transition location not an improvement in the operation of the computer or electronic-map system. The additional limitations also do not: apply the abstract idea using a particular machine that is integral to the claim; transform a physical article into a different state or thing; effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; or otherwise meaningfully limit the performance of the mental process. Taken individually, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Considered as an ordered combination, the elements merely use generic electronic-map terminology and a generic computer environment to collect map data, perform the abstract organizational process, and present the resulting map information. Accordingly, claim 1, as a whole, does not integrate the recited mental process into a practical application. Step 2A: Yes. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the Examiner evaluates whether the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the recited mental process.
The additional limitations of a computer-implemented method, electronic maps, a wayfinding application, receipt of an electronic floor plan, and display of the resulting route do not provide an inventive concept.
The recitation of a computer merely instructs that the mental process be performed electronically. The electronic maps are the information upon which the mental process operates. Receiving the floor plan supplies the information to be evaluated, and displaying the route presents the result. These limitations amount to generic computer implementation, data gathering, and post-solution output.
The claim does not recite a nonconventional arrangement of computer components, a particular technological mapping procedure, a specialized route-network-generation algorithm, or another additional limitation that transforms the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.
When considered as an ordered combination, the limitations perform the same generic functions they perform individually: receiving map information, organizing the information into routes, annotating the map, and presenting the result. The ordered combination therefore adds no inventive concept beyond the abstract mental process itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 6,
Under Step 1:
Claim 6 is a method claim reciting a computer-implemented method. Thus, Claim 1 falls within the statutory category of a process. Step 1: Yes.
Under Step 2A - Prong 1:
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis, claim 6 recites:
A computer implemented method for optimizing a route in a combined electronic map comprising an electronic outdoor map and a customized electronic indoor map or a customized electronic outdoor map by an optimized way finding application, and which the combined electronic map comprises additional information comprising a place, where a route in the combined electronic map is configured to be continued between the outdoor map and the customized electronic map, the method comprises:
receiving a starting point for the route, if not using a location application for defining the starting point or if the starting point is not predetermined by a weblink or a machine-readable code used for opening the optimized way finding application;
receiving a destination of a user, if not predetermined by a weblink or a machine-readable code used for opening the optimized way finding application;
optimizing the route to the destination from the starting point; and
displaying the route on the map, wherein the route continues from an outdoor environment into and inside a facility of the customized electronic indoor map or from an outdoor environment to and inside an area without street addresses of the customized electronic outdoor map through the place defined in the additional information.
The Examiner submits that the emphasized limitation of optimizing a route from a starting point to a destination, when considered together with the receipt of the starting point and destination and the identified transition location, constitutes a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a person can: receive or identify a starting location; receive or identify a destination; review an outdoor map and an indoor floor plan; identify the entrance, gate, door, parking entrance, or other location at which travel continues between the maps; compare possible routes; select a route from the starting point to the destination; and draw, describe, or otherwise present the selected route. A person can practically perform these steps mentally or using paper maps and a pencil. For example, a person may receive a request for directions, review a street map and building floor plan, compare possible paths, select what the person considers the shortest or most suitable route, and mark or describe that route to the requester. The claim recites the result of “optimizing” the route but does not recite a particular optimization algorithm, weighting technique, mathematical formula, computer-network structure, or technological process that determines how the optimized route is selected. The claim therefore encompasses human evaluation and judgment regarding which route should be used. The conditional references to a location application, weblink, or machine-readable code do not remove the limitation from the mental-process grouping. When those mechanisms are not used, the claim expressly permits the starting point and destination to be received from the user. Even when one of those mechanisms supplies the information, the route-selection activity remains the mental process of evaluating map information and choosing a route.
Accordingly, claim 6 recites the abstract idea of receiving location information, evaluating possible routes, and selecting a route from a starting point to a destination, which is a mental process.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claim is analyzed as a whole to determine whether any additional elements beyond the identified mental process integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations beyond the identified mental process include: “a computer implemented method”; “a combined electronic map”; “an electronic outdoor map”; “a customized electronic indoor map or a customized electronic outdoor map”; “an optimized way finding application”; a location application, weblink, or machine-readable code as possible sources of the starting point or destination; additional information identifying where the route continues between maps; displaying the route on the map; and limiting the route to an outdoor, indoor, facility, or address less-outdoor environment. For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The computer, electronic maps, and wayfinding application are recited at a high level of generality and merely provide an electronic environment in which the abstract route-selection process is performed. The claim does not require a particular computer configuration, specialized navigation processor, specific map-data architecture, improved positioning system, specific routing algorithm, or technological technique for linking the indoor and outdoor maps. The computer and application therefore function merely as tools for receiving the starting and destination information, performing the route-selection judgment, and presenting the result. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Receiving the starting point and destination merely gathers the information required to perform the route-selection process. The claim does not require a particular technical method for acquiring the information. To the contrary, the information may be received from the user when it is not predetermined by a location application, weblink, or machine-readable code. Thus, the starting-point and destination limitations amount to insignificant data-gathering activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The location application, weblink, and machine-readable code are recited conditionally as possible sources of input information. They do not perform a claimed technological operation beyond supplying the starting point, destination, or application-opening information used in the abstract process. The claim does not recite how the location application calculates the location, how the machine-readable code is generated or decoded, how the weblink encodes route information, or how any of these technologies is improved. Accordingly, these limitations merely identify generic sources from which the data used in the abstract process may be obtained and do not meaningfully limit the route-selection process. The limitation of displaying the route on the map merely outputs the result of the route-selection process. The claim does not recite a specific graphical rendering method, an improved display interface, a particular visual guidance technique, or a technological improvement in displaying indoor and outdoor route information. Displaying the selected route is therefore insignificant post-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The limitations concerning an outdoor environment, an indoor facility, or an outdoor area without street addresses merely restrict the abstract route-selection process to particular navigation environments. The claim does not improve those environments or recite a technological operation performed on a physical structure within those environments. Limiting an abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claim does not identify a specific improvement to computer functionality, electronic-map technology, route-calculation technology, positioning technology, or another technical field. The claimed result may improve the information provided to a user by showing a continuous indoor/outdoor route, but the claim does not recite a particular technological manner of accomplishing that result. Instead, it broadly claims receiving endpoints, selecting a route, and displaying it on electronic maps. The additional elements do not: require a particular machine that is integral to the claimed process; transform a physical article into a different state or thing; recite a specific technological solution to a technological problem; or otherwise impose a meaningful limitation on the abstract route-selection process. Considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, claim 6 merely uses generic computer and mapping technology to gather route information, perform the mental process, and display its result.
Accordingly, claim 6 does not integrate the recited mental process into a practical application. Step 2A: Yes. Claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The recitations of a computer-implemented method, electronic maps, and a wayfinding application merely place the abstract route-selection process on a computer. The location application, weblink, and machine-readable code merely provide input information. The display limitation merely presents the selected route. The indoor and outdoor environments merely define the field in which the abstract process is used.
None of these additional limitations recites a non-generic computer arrangement, a particular technological mapping solution, a specialized optimization algorithm, or an unconventional manner of integrating an indoor map with an outdoor map. As an ordered combination, the limitations perform only the generic sequence of: obtaining starting-point and destination information; evaluating map information; selecting a route; and displaying the selected route. The ordered combination therefore does not provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract mental process itself.
Accordingly, claim 6 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 6 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mays (US 20100023249 A1), in view of Yang (US 20130144525 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mays discloses a computer implemented method for forming or modifying a customized electronic map of a combined electronic map for an optimized way finding application, which the combined electronic map further comprises an electronic outdoor map [0028] “The device 112 receives images of layouts from the image source 104 for generating routable open area maps,” and [0032] “The application 134 is a software program used to generate open area maps that are routable based on pre-existing images,” and “the processor 128 runs the application 134 and creates or generates or assists in generation of a routable map” (i.e., using a processor-executed software application to form a customized routable electronic map), the method comprises;
receiving a floor plan or floor plans of different floors of a facility or a ground plan of an outdoor area in electronic form [0026] “The images of the layouts may include images of a real-world building floorplan, a parking lot, a park, an indoor or outdoor recreation area,” and [0040] “The image 201 is downloaded or received at the device 112. The image 201 is used to create or generate an open area map that is routable” (i.e., electronically receiving indoor floor plans or outdoor ground plans to generate a routable map),
forming movement paths from a plurality of points to a plurality of points for forming a movement path network to the floor plan or the floor plans or the ground plan [0040] “a grid, mesh, or array 300 is applied on or over the image 201,” wherein the grid elements may comprise “tiles, sections, blocks, points, dots, circles, polygons,” and [0041] “the grid or mesh 300 may include unconnected dots or points” (i.e., applying a plurality of routable points or grid elements to the floor plan) [0061] “The calculation and determination of the routes and/or the paths 605 and 704 are based on or formed of adjacent, continuous, or connected tiles. For example, navigable tiles that border or touch each other are considered for point-to-point routing, in which any area in the layout or any point associated with adjacent tiles can be routed to based on calculation regarding the grid or mesh,” and “Adjacent tiles forming a route may be connected or linked by their center points or other parts” (i.e., interconnected movement paths extending among a plurality of mapped points and forming a movement-path network).,
adding movement information to the floor plan or the floor plans or the ground plan [0049] “The restriction 509 represents a real-world area, crossing, boundary, obstacle, and/or access/exit point that requires certain criteria or conditions to allow one to pass through,” and [0051] “restriction data and/or criteria is associated with the restriction 509” (i.e., adding information governing whether movement through a mapped path is permitted) “the restriction data and/or criteria may be associated with one or more tiles of the grid 300,” and that the restriction may correspond to “a gate, a door, an opening, an elevator, an escalator, a moving walkway, a stairwell” (i.e., movement information added to mapped paths or mapped passage locations), and
adding additional information to the floor plan or the floor plans or the ground plan, wherein the additional information comprises a place, where a route in the combined electronic map is configured to be continued between the outdoor map and the customized electronic map [0048] “The connection point 405 represents or acts as a link to another map,” and the connection point “may correspond to one or more elevators, a stairwell, an escalator, a ladder, or other feature for moving a person to another floor or area.” Mays further states that the connection point may be “used to route between an area or point from the image 201 to another point or area on another map or floor plan” (i.e., stored transition information identifying the location at which routing continues between electronic maps),
Mays does not expressly disclose that “the customized electronic map forms part of a combined electronic map comprising a separate electronic outdoor map” and “wherein the route to be displayed is configured to continue from the outdoor map into and the customized electronic indoor map or from the customized electronic indoor map to the outdoor map.”
However, Yang teaches the place at which a route is continued between an outdoor map and an indoor map [0030] “the map server may provide an indoor and outdoor linked map when it is needed,” and an outdoor and indoor linked route [Abstract] “The user terminal reflects the indoor path to the outdoor path to create an outdoor and indoor linked path” (i.e., the customized indoor map and outdoor map forming a combined electronic map). [0043] “An access point may include a plurality of outdoor access points and a plurality of indoor access points,” wherein “The outdoor access point may be used to find an outdoor path up to a building using an outdoor map.” Yang further teaches [0044] “The indoor access point may be a gate of a building, a parking lot entrance/exit, a front door of a building, or a location through which a user may enter a building” (i.e., the transition place between the outdoor and customized indoor maps). Yang further discloses the displayed route continuing from the outdoor map into the customized indoor map through that place [0046] “The path finding unit 206 finds an outdoor path up to an outdoor access point from a current location using the outdoor map,” and [0047] “finds an indoor path up to an indoor destination from an indoor access point using the indoor map” and “reflects the indoor path found using the indoor map to the outdoor path, thereby creating an outdoor and indoor linked path” (i.e., a continuous route from the outdoor map through the designated access point and into the indoor map). Yang also discloses displaying the route [0036] “The display unit 204 displays the path on the map” (i.e., displaying the continuous indoor/outdoor route).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mays and Yang by modifying Mays’s customized floor-plan-derived routable map and map-connection points to use Yang’s outdoor and indoor access points for linking a conventional outdoor navigation map to Mays’s detailed indoor map. The combination would have produced a customized indoor map connected to an outdoor map through stored transition information and capable of displaying a continuous indoor/outdoor route.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Mays and Yang because Yang expressly seeks to provide a continuous path to an indoor destination by linking indoor and outdoor maps Yang [0007] “the present invention provides a method for linking an indoor map and an outdoor map to find a path, in case that a destination of an indoor location is requested by a user,” and that the disclosed process “rapidly provides a user with a path to a destination of an indoor location”
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Mays and Yang discloses a computer implemented method according to claim 1,
Mays discloses wherein the movement information comprises at least one of the following:
access rights of user groups in the movement paths [0049] a restriction “may represent or be associated with a key, a badge, a code, a retinal scan, or a fingerprint, and/or determination of weight, height, or other physical feature of a person and/or items associated with the person (e.g., a maximum or minimum height or weight) to allow and/or restrict passage.” and [0050] “passage through the restriction 509 may be unidirectional based on criteria, such as access authority (e.g., a badge or code)” (i.e., movement-path access rights based on user authorization),
access rights at different days, times of a day, or seasons of a year in the movement paths [0049] “passage through the restriction 509 may depend upon a time of day,” and [0053] describes “a gated passageway or door that requires a badge or access authority to traverse or a gate that opens or allows access depending on a time of day (e.g., between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.)” (i.e., time-dependent access rights in the movement paths),
accessibility of a special need persons in the movement paths [0026] movement through the mapped environment may occur “via a wheel chair, a bicycle, or other mobile assistance device,” and [0063] provides that routing criteria may include “physical information” (i.e., accessibility information used in determining traversable paths), or
suitability for different kind of ways of moving in the movement paths [0026] by expressly identifying movement “via a wheel chair, a bicycle, or other mobile assistance device.” Yang further states [0027] “A path to be found may differ depending on whether a user is traveling by vehicle or on foot” (i.e., different routes based on the manner of movement).
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Mays and Yang discloses a computer implemented method according to claim 1,
Mays discloses wherein the method further comprises:
adding or removing one or more movement paths or parts of one or more movement paths [0067] “The received image may be modified. For example, eraser or drawing tools or functions may be provided so that the map developer can add or remove image features. In some cases, doors or openings may need to be added for routing purposes.” Thus, adding a door or opening adds a movement path, while removing an opening or adding an impassable feature removes the corresponding path or path portion.
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Mays and Yang discloses an electronic device configured to perform the method according to claim 1, Mays [0032] “the processor 128 runs the application 134 and creates or generates or assists in generation of a routable map,” and “The application 134 may be stored in the memory 132 and/or other memory” (i.e., the device is configured by stored instructions to perform the claimed map-generation operations).
Mays does not appear to teach a device configured to perform the indoor/outdoor linking portion
However, Yang teaches a device configured to perform the indoor/outdoor linking portion [0034] “The user terminal 100 includes an input unit 202, a display unit 204, a path finding unit 206, a path providing unit 208, a storage unit 210, a communication unit 212, and a GPS receiving unit 214” (i.e., an electronic navigation device configured to receive inputs, calculate the linked route, and display it).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mays and Yang by modifying Mays’s customized floor-plan-derived routable map and map-connection points to use Yang’s user terminal to perform the linkage.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Mays and Yang because Yang expressly seeks to provide a continuous path to an indoor destination by linking indoor and outdoor maps Yang [0007] “the present invention provides a method for linking an indoor map and an outdoor map to find a path, in case that a destination of an indoor location is requested by a user,” and that the disclosed process “rapidly provides a user with a path to a destination of an indoor location”
Regarding Claim 5, The combination of Mays and Yang discloses a computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium, the computer program product comprising computer instructions that, when executed on at least one processor of a system or an apparatus, is configured to perform the method according to claim 1, Mays [0114] “The logic, software, or instructions for implementing the processes, methods and/or techniques discussed above are provided on computer-readable storage media or memories or other tangible media, such as a cache, buffer, RAM, removable media, hard drive, other computer readable storage media, or any other tangible media.” (i.e., software instructions embodied on non-transitory computer-readable storage media). Mays further discloses that the instructions, when executed by a processor, perform the map method [0114] “The functions, acts, steps, or tasks illustrated in the figures or described herein are executed in response to one or more sets of logic or instructions stored in or on computer readable storage media.” (i.e., computer instructions that cause a processor to perform the method of Claim 1).
Claim(s) 6-8, 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mays (US 20100023249 A1), in view of Yang (US 20130144525 A1), and further in view of Evanitsky (US 20100268450 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Mays discloses a computer implemented method for optimizing a route and optimizing the route to the destination from the starting point [0060] “After the origin point 609 and destination point 712 are selected, various routes are calculated and/or compared based on the underlying compiled grid,” and “Various aspects, such as distance, non-navigable areas, costs, and/or restrictions, are considered to determine an optimum route” (i.e., optimizing the route from the starting point to the destination).
Mays does not disclose “a combined electronic map comprising an electronic outdoor map and a customized electronic indoor map or a customized electronic outdoor map by an optimized way finding application.”
However, Yang discloses a combined electronic map comprising an electronic outdoor map and a customized electronic indoor map or a customized electronic outdoor map by an optimized way finding application [0028] “The user terminal 100 may find an outdoor path using the outdoor map,” and “then find an entire path in which an indoor path found using the indoor map is reflected to the outdoor path” (i.e., route calculation using an electronic outdoor map combined with an indoor map). Yang further states [0030] that the map server “may also provide an indoor and outdoor linked map in which the indoor map and the outdoor map have already been linked” (i.e., a combined electronic map containing indoor and outdoor map information).,
and which the combined electronic map comprises additional information comprising a place, where a route in the combined electronic map is configured to be continued between the outdoor map and the customized electronic map [0043] “An access point may include a plurality of outdoor access points and a plurality of indoor access points,” and [0044] “The indoor access point may be a gate of a building, a parking lot entrance/exit, a front door of a building, or a location through which a user may enter a building” (i.e., stored transition locations at which the route passes between maps), the method comprises:
receiving a starting point for the route … [0032] “The GPS 104 functions to determine a current location of the user terminal 100 when the user terminal 100 is out of the door using information received from GPS” (i.e., automatically defining and receiving the route starting point using a location application).;
receiving a destination of a user; [0037] “The input unit 202 receives information on a target destination from the user” (i.e., user entry of the destination). Yang further states [0057] “the user terminal 100 is requested to find a path up to a destination from a current location through the input unit 202” (i.e., receiving a user route request identifying the destination). Yang also discloses finding the route from the starting point to the destination [0040] “When requested from the input unit 202 to find a path up to a destination, the path finding unit 206 finds the path up to the requested destination from a current location” (i.e., computing the route from the starting point to the destination).
and displaying the route on the map [0036] “The display unit 204 displays the path on the map” (i.e., displaying the optimized route), wherein the route continues from outdoor environment into and inside a facility of the customized electronic indoor map or from outdoor environment to and inside an area without street addresses of the customized electronic outdoor map through the place defined in the additional information [0046] “The path finding unit 206 finds an outdoor path up to an outdoor access point from a current location using the outdoor map,” and [0047] “finds an indoor path up to an indoor destination from an indoor access point using the indoor map” and “reflects the indoor path found using the indoor map to the outdoor path, thereby creating an outdoor and indoor linked path” (i.e., continuous outdoor-to-indoor routing through the defined access point).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yang’s indoor/outdoor linked-route system to use Mays’s established route-optimization algorithms and restriction-aware route comparison. Yang already finds indoor and outdoor route portions and permits use of a different building-access point. Mays teaches evaluating candidate paths using distance and restrictions to select the optimum path.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Mays and Yang because Yang expressly seeks to provide a continuous path to an indoor destination by linking indoor and outdoor maps Yang [0007] “the present invention provides a method for linking an indoor map and an outdoor map to find a path, in case that a destination of an indoor location is requested by a user,” and that the disclosed process “rapidly provides a user with a path to a destination of an indoor location”
The combination of Mays and Yang do not disclose “receiving a starting point for the route if not using a location application for defining the starting point or if the starting point is not predetermined by a weblink or a machine-readable code used for opening the optimized way finding application”
However, Evanitsky teaches receiving a starting point for the route if not using a location application for defining the starting point or if the starting point is not predetermined by a weblink or a machine-readable code used for opening the optimized way finding application [0025] “The system determines the current position (the beginning location) based on automated positioning (assuming the display/input device is attached to the user) and/or user input. For example, the beginning location may be determined by a global positioning system (GPS), a cell phone network infrastructure (e.g., triangulation), or can be input by the user, using any of the input formats described above.” Evanitsky further states that the beginning location “can be input by the user, using any of the input formats described above” (i.e., receiving the route starting point from the user when automatic positioning is not used).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mays, Yang, and Evanitsky to make the system wherein receiving a starting point for the route if not using a location application for defining the starting point or if the starting point is not predetermined by a weblink or a machine-readable code used for opening the optimized way finding application.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Mays, Yang, and Evanitsky to select the best route based on user inputs [0026] “The system calculates potential routes from the beginning location to the end location and may select one of the potential routes (e.g., the best route) and output the selected route to the user. Once the system obtains the ending and beginning locations, the system may calculate potential routes from the beginning location to the end location and may select one of the potential routes (e.g., the best route). The "best" route can be selected based on predetermined criteria or criteria established by the user.”
Regarding Claim 7, The combination of Mays, Yang, and Evanitsky discloses a computer implemented method according to claim 6,
Mays discloses wherein the optimizing of the route comprises selecting the route so that the moving time is minimum or the moving distance is shortest [0060] “various routes are calculated and/or compared,” and “distance, non-navigable areas, costs, and/or restrictions, are considered to determine an optimum route” (i.e., selecting an optimized route based at least on route distance). taking into account at least one of the following criteria: the user group of the user [0049] a restriction “may represent or be associated with a key, a badge, a code, a retinal scan, or a fingerprint, and/or determination of weight, height, or other physical feature of a person and/or items associated with the person (e.g., a maximum or minimum height or weight) to allow and/or restrict passage.” and [0050] “passage through the restriction 509 may be unidirectional based on criteria, such as access authority (e.g., a badge or code)” (i.e., movement-path access rights based on user authorization), a day, a time of a day, a season of the year [0049] “passage through the restriction 509 may depend upon a time of day,” and [0053] describes “a gated passageway or door that requires a badge or access authority to traverse or a gate that opens or allows access depending on a time of day (e.g., between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.)” (i.e., time-dependent access rights in the movement paths), a special need information [0026] movement through the mapped environment may occur “via a wheel chair, a bicycle, or other mobile assistance device,” and [0063] provides that routing criteria may include “physical information” (i.e., accessibility information used in determining traversable paths), or a way of moving [0026] by expressly identifying movement “via a wheel chair, a bicycle, or other mobile assistance device.” Yang further states [0027] “A path to be found may differ depending on whether a user is traveling by vehicle or on foot” (i.e., different routes based on the manner of movement).
Regarding Claim 8, The combination of Mays and Yang discloses a computer implemented method according to claim 7, wherein the information of the user group of the user, the special need or the way of moving is received from the user, if not predefined by the weblink or the machine-readable code [0049] a restriction “may represent or be associated with a key, a badge, a code, a retinal scan, or a fingerprint, and/or determination of weight, height, or other physical feature of a person and/or items associated with the person (e.g., a maximum or minimum height or weight) to allow and/or restrict passage.” and [0050] “passage through the restriction 509 may be unidirectional based on criteria, such as access authority (e.g., a badge or code)” (i.e., movement-path access rights based on user authorization), [0026] movement through the mapped environment may occur “via a wheel chair, a bicycle, or other mobile assistance device,” and [0063] provides that routing criteria may include “physical information” (i.e., accessibility information used in determining traversable paths). [0063] The full path 620 may be generated and displayed based on prior user input. For example, before routing, the user entered or inputted criteria or information corresponding to the restriction 509. The criteria may include physical information, authorization information, monetary information, and/or other information (i.e., received from the user, if not predefined by the weblink or the machine-readable code).
Regarding Claim 13, The combination of Mays, Yang, and Evanitsky discloses a computer implemented method according to claim 7,
Mays does not disclose “wherein the way of moving is a heavy vehicle, a car, public transportation, a bike, an electronic scooter, or walking”
However, Yang teaches wherein the way of moving is a heavy vehicle, a car, public transportation, a bike, an electronic scooter, or walking [0004] In addition, the navigation system is currently mounted in kinds of moving objects such as ships, aircrafts, and cars and is widely used to identify current position and speed of the moving objects or determine their moving path. [0027] “A path to be found may differ depending on whether a user is traveling by vehicle or on foot” (i.e., car/vehicle travel or walking).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mays and Yang to make the system wherein the way of moving is a heavy vehicle, a car, public transportation, a bike, an electronic scooter, or walking.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply mode-dependent routing because Yang expressly teaches that “A path to be found may differ depending on whether a user is traveling by vehicle or on foot,” including selecting a parking-lot route for a vehicle and a nearer entrance for a pedestrian Yang [0027] “A path to be found may differ depending on whether a user is traveling by vehicle or on foot. For example, when the user is driving a vehicle, the user terminal may find a parking lot nearest to the destination first, find a path to the searched parking lot from a current location and then find a path to the destination from the parking lot.”
Regarding Claim 14, The combination of Mays, Yang, and Evanitsky discloses a computer implemented method according to claim 6,
Yang and Mays do not expressly disclose “wherein the map comprises information of a time table and public transportation to be used in the route if public transportation is selected as the way of moving, and if they exist in the route.”
However, Evanitsky teaches wherein the map comprises information of a time table and public transportation to be used in the route if public transportation is selected as the way of moving, and if they exist in the route [0015] “The transit data source includes real-time information regarding the tracked location of transit vehicles to generate estimated arrival times, transit routes, transit schedules, and boarding locations of public transportation.” (i.e., public-transportation route and timetable information). Evanitsky further discloses that the public transportation may include “busses, trains, subways, airplanes, ferries, trolleys, cable cars, tramcars, street cars, monorails” (i.e., multiple types of public transportation available for incorporation in the route). [0027] “Each potential route may include one or more route portions,” and each route portion may include “public transportation, driving, walking, bicycling” (i.e., incorporation of the selected transportation mode into the route). Evanitsky further teaches [0029] “The potential routes include public transportation as portions of the potential routes” (i.e., the optimized route uses public transportation when a transit route is available).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mays, Yang, and Evanitsky to make the system wherein the map comprises information of a time table and public transportation to be used in the route if public transportation is selected as the way of moving, and if they exist in the route.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Mays, Yang, and Evanitsky to select the best route based on user inputs [0026] “The system calculates potential routes from the beginning location to the end location and may select one of the potential routes (e.g., the best route) and output the selected route to the user. Once the system obtains the ending and beginning locations, the system may calculate potential routes from the beginning location to the end location and may select one of the potential routes (e.g., the best route). The "best" route can be selected based on predetermined criteria or criteria established by the user.”
Regarding Claim 15, The combination of Mays, Yang, and Evanitsky discloses a computer implemented method according to claim 6,
Mays discloses wherein the route comprises information of a need to change a floor, use of lifts, and a point of a turn in the facility, if they exist in the route [0048] a connection point “may correspond to one or more elevators, a stairwell, an escalator, a ladder, or other feature for moving a person to another floor or area” (i.e., a floor-change point and use of a lift or other vertical connector). Mays further discloses a multi-floor route [0059] a user routes “from his or her office 505 in the image 201 to a gym 709 in the image 700,” and [0060] “The path 605 is displayed and uses elevators via a connection point 613,” after which the second-floor map “shows a path 704” continuing to the destination (i.e., a route instructing the user to change floors and use an elevator).
Regarding Claim 16, The claim recites a device the parallel limitations in claim 6, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale and reasoning.
Regarding Claim 17, The claim recites a computer program embodied on a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” of the parallel limitations in claim 6, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale and reasoning.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mays (US 20100023249 A1), in view of Yang (US 20130144525 A1), and further in view of Evanitsky (US 20100268450 A1), and further in view of Shvimer (WO 2013057730 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, The combination of Mays, Yang, and Evanitsky discloses a computer implemented method according to claim 6,
The combination of Mays, Yang, and Evanitsky do not disclose wherein the method further comprises:
displaying the route as a list of written instructions comprising at least one of the following information: moving direction, length of time to move to a certain direction, or length of moving to a certain direction for a certain part of the route or the whole route.
However, Shvimer teaches displaying the route as a list of written instructions comprising at least one of the following information: moving direction, length of time to move to a certain direction, or length of moving to a certain direction for a certain part of the route or the whole route [0017] “the guiding module is further comprising the step of creating guiding instructions based on measurements of the distances and changes of direction. (i.e., written route instructions)” [0004] “The method is comprising the following steps: (i) starting a tracking session; (ii) measuring and identifying changes of direction throughout user walk using the orientation sensor (i.e., a sequence of written movement directions) ; (iii) measuring distance between every two identified changes of direction and saving the distance and respective direction; determining arrival to destination and ending tracking session (i.e., distance traveled in a specified direction for an individual route portion); and (iv) providing a user an option to track the predefined origin location from a destination based on saved changes of direction and the distances that were measured between every two changes of direction.” [0016] “distance may be measured by measuring an elapsed walking time and multiplying it by the walking pace” (i.e., use of movement time to characterize a route portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mays, Yang, and Shvimer to display Yang’s and Mays’s already-calculated route using Shvimer’s known written, turn-by-turn instruction format. The modification changes only the route’s presentation and predictably allows the user to follow the route without continuously interpreting a graphical map.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the combination to improve the accuracy of distance measurements and calculations [0078] “Figure 9 is a screen illustration of insertion of details of a user 900, according to some embodiments of the invention. According to some embodiments of the present invention, the user may insert personal details such as the user's height or weight. Those details may improve the accuracy of distance measurements and calculations.”
Regarding Claim 10, The combination of Mays, Yang, and Evanitsky discloses a computer implemented method according to claim 7,
Mays discloses some point types as a point of interest [0048] a connection point may correspond to “one or more elevators, a stairwell, an escalator,” and [0049] a restriction may correspond to “a gate, a door, an opening, an elevator, an escalator, a moving walkway, a stairwell” (i.e., doors, stairs, elevators, and gates serving as mapped route locations).
Mays does not teach the full claim limitation regarding “wherein the certain part of the route is a part of the route between two points-of interest, which a point of interest is a crossroad, a point of turn, a tunnel, a bridge, a door, stairs, an elevator, or a gate.”
However, Shvimer teaches a certain part of the route extending between two route points [0014] “measure distance between every two changes of direction” (i.e., a route portion bounded by successive direction-change points). Shvimer further states [0035] that the system associates “each turn direction with the matching distance” (i.e., each route part extends from one turn or maneuver point toward the next turn point).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to divide Yang’s and Mays’s calculated route into Shvimer’s turn-to-turn portions because each direction change naturally marks the end of one navigation instruction and the beginning of the next.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the combination to improve the accuracy of distance measurements and calculations [0078] “Figure 9 is a screen illustration of insertion of details of a user 900, according to some embodiments of the invention. According to some embodiments of the present invention, the user may insert personal details such as the user's height or weight. Those details may improve the accuracy of distance measurements and calculations.”
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mays (US 20100023249 A1), in view of Yang (US 20130144525 A1), and further in view of Evanitsky (US 20100268450 A1), and further in view of Nishimura (US 20150369612 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, The combination of Mays, Yang, and Evanitsky discloses a computer implemented method according to claim 7,
The combination of Mays, Yang, and Evanitsky do not disclose “wherein a first user group has different access rights than a second user group so that different routes are optimized for the first user group than the second user group.”
However, Nishimura teaches different access rights for different users or user groups [0103] “The security level can be, for example, permission to pass through a security gate, permission to enter a room, or permission to leave a room” (i.e., access rights assigned through the user profile). Nishimura explains that one user lacks direct access [0174] “the first user does not have entry permission to the security area,” and therefore is routed through a security center (i.e., a route based on the first user’s limited access rights). Nishimura describes a second user having different profile and permission information [0181]–[0188], including an employee profile that permits a more direct entry route (i.e., a second user or group having different access rights). Nishimura expressly discloses different optimized routes resulting from those different access rights [0195] “even though different users requested a route guide for traveling to the same destination, the route guide provided different routes and building entry information optimal for each user.” (i.e., different optimized routes for differently authorized users). Nishimura further explains in [0197]–[0200] that different persons or groups may be allowed to use different gates and passages and that employees, visitors, and facility supervisors may receive different access treatment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Nishimura’s group-specific permission routing to Yang and Mays because Mays already teaches badge- and code-controlled doors and gates.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the combination to improve navigation and reduce confusion when traveling to a destination [0019] “Furthermore, there are cases where the operating direction of equipment (for example an escalator) may change to the opposite direction, for example, depending on the time of day (for example during commuting rush-hour), or cases where equipment (such as an elevator) changes the floors that stopping is permitted depending on the time of day (for example times with large numbers of visitors). Therefore, users of these multiuse facilities may become confused or must make unavoidable detours. Therefore, many users have trouble smoothly reaching their destination.”
Regarding Claim 12, The combination of Mays, Yang, and Evanitsky discloses a computer implemented method according to claim 7,
The combination of Mays, Yang, and Evanitsky do not disclose “wherein the user group is one of the following: a regular user, an employee, a performer, a security person, an owner of the indoor environments, or maintenance.”
However, Nishimura teaches wherein the user group is one of the following: a regular user, an employee, a performer, a security person, an owner of the indoor environments, or maintenance [0103] the profile may designate the user as a “general visitor, employee, essential person (VIP), security personnel, cargo delivery company, or a person with approval to enter” (i.e., at least a regular user, employee, or security person). Nishimura additionally identifies in [0200] a “general user” and a “facility supervisor” (i.e., regular users and users having facility-control responsibilities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Nishimura’s group-specific permission routing to Yang and Mays because Mays already teaches badge- and code-controlled doors and gates.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the combination to improve navigation and reduce confusion when traveling to a destination [0019] “Furthermore, there are cases where the operating direction of equipment (for example an escalator) may change to the opposite direction, for example, depending on the time of day (for example during commuting rush-hour), or cases where equipment (such as an elevator) changes the floors that stopping is permitted depending on the time of day (for example times with large numbers of visitors). Therefore, users of these multiuse facilities may become confused or must make unavoidable detours. Therefore, many users have trouble smoothly reaching their destination.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Ward (US 20150051994 A1) teaches an indoor location mapping and wayfinding system for mapping waypoints on an interactive mapping system that functions both indoors and outdoors based on user selections and the user’s location, identifies destinations or selected items on an indoor map, and provides a route to the user for navigating to the identified destinations or collecting the selected items. Mendelson (US 20100121567 A1) teaches an indoor navigation system that loads a local facility map onto a mobile device, uses Bluetooth beacons installed at known locations in a building or facility as waypoints, determines the user’s location on the facility map based on proximity to the Bluetooth beacons, and provides navigation within malls, stores, shopping centers, and buildings. Dantu (US 20120143495 A1) teaches an indoor navigation system that uses sensors incorporated into a mobile smartphone to track a person’s indoor location and identify landmarks along corridors, calculates the person’s present location and the distance to a selected destination, forms routes directing the person toward the destination, and generates alerts identifying turns and landmarks along the route.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSAM ALZATEEMEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571) 270-3832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUSSAM ALDEEN ALZATEEMEH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/CHRISTOPHER GEORGE FEES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights