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 action is in response to the communication filed on August 08, 2025.
Claims 1-14 are examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 08, 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.
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, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Step 2A Prong 2 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG.
Step 2B This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
Step 1 Statutory Category:
Claims 1-5 are recited as being directed to “a method of providing assisted generation of label set …”. Claim 6-10 is recited as being directed to “a device for providing assisted generation of label sets, the device comprising: a processor”.
Claims 10-14 is recited as being directed to a “non-transitory computer readable medium storing an information system …” Thus claims 1, 6 and 10 have been identified to be directed towards the appropriate statutory category. Below is further analysis related to step 2.
a). In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
Claim 1, 6 and 10 recites, obtaining label definition information; selecting a subset of the label definition information; associating the subset of the label definition information with at least one scenario labeling set; providing a map view to a user; obtaining a selection of a chosen scenario labeling set of the at least one scenario labeling sets; determine placement of at least one label of the chosen scenario labeling set on the map view provided to the user; associating the at least one label with at least one attribute; and updating the map view responsive to the associating the at least one label with the at least one attribute.
As claim texts drafted by a set of very minimal limitations (or elements) of each of the claim categories, obtaining label definition information; selecting a subset of the label definition information; associating the subset of the label definition information with scenario labeling set; providing a map view; obtaining a selection of a chosen scenario labeling set; determine placement of at least one label on the map view; associating the label with at least attribute; and updating the map view … are merely a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), but for the recitation of processing unit, memory and a computer readable medium which are explicitly generic computing components, including:
Similarly, “selecting a subset of the label definition information”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a user can select the label information from a menu or layout using his/her mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the selecting limitation is a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Similarly, “associating the subset of the label definition information with at least one scenario labeling set”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a user can associate or link different label definition information with different scenario or situation with his/her mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, associating the subset of the label definition information with scenario is a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Similarly, “obtaining a selection of a chosen scenario labeling set of the at least one scenario labeling sets”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a user can obtain different label definition information for different scenario with his/her mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, a obtaining a selection of a chosen scenario labeling set is a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Similarly, “determine placement of at least one label of the chosen scenario labeling set on the map view provided to the user”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a user can determine which label definition information to place in which scenario with his/her mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, determine placement of at least one label of the chosen scenario labeling set on the map is a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Similarly, “associating the at least one label with at least one attribute”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a user can associate or ma or link label information to an object attribute using his/her mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, associating the at least one label with at least one attribute is a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The claim recites three additional; elements: “obtaining label definition information”, “updating the map view responsive to the associating the at least one label with the at least one attribute”.
The obtaining step as recited amounts to mere data gathering for use in the selection and association step, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Further obtaining label definition information step as recited also amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Updating the map view responsive to the associating the at least one label which is nothing more than data gathering selecting and associating and updating. Hence, updating step is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
b) In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “a device for providing assisted generation of label sets, the device comprising: a processor”, “non-transitory computer readable medium storing an information system …”. The additional components are generic computer components even being recited as additional limitations, however, do not preclude the claims from reciting an abstract idea. For instance, as the above detailed analysis on the minimal limitations as abstract ideas that can be performed mentally in mind by human, without reciting any “additional element” to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The processes of receiving necessities for performing an action and providing indication of completed such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, processing unit(s), memory and computer readable medium for the processes. That is, the limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp). Accordingly, even considering all the elements as additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
c) In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
The claims 1, 6 and 10 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, there is simply no additional elements adding to the already analyzed very few minimal steps of performing action. The steps, represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry and are specified at a high level of generality, and in the context of the limitations reciting performing action that can be practically performed in the human mind and may be considered to fall within the mental process and mathematical concepts groupings.
As such, the limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp). The claims are not patent eligible.
Further the limitations in the dependent claims 2-5, 5-9 and 11-14 are an extension of the abstract idea of claim 1, 6 and 10 above.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gyurdiev US 2021/0142527 A1), in view of Rogerson et al (US 2007/0240049 A1).
As per claim 1, Gyurdiev discloses:
- a method of providing assisted generation of label sets and providing information, comprising (Fig. 3. Item 130, Abstract, line 1-6, Para [0074], a system and method form generating label in an airport map),
- providing a map view to a user (Para [0007], [0066], proving different view of an airport map),
- obtaining a selection of a chosen scenario labeling set of the at least one scenario labeling sets (Para [0090] – [0093], label sets for labeling objects in different level (i.e., scenario)),
- determine placement of at least one label of the chosen scenario labeling set on the map view provided to the user (Fig. 3, item 132, Para [0010], [0058], [0074], determining position or placement of a label on the map),
- associating the at least one label with at least one attribute (Para [0066], [0101], map labeling control unit associating label with attribute),
- and updating the map view responsive to the associating the at least one label with the at least one attribute (Para [0121], [0128], [0162], labels are added to the global feature list (i.e., updating map view).
Gyuriev does not explicitly disclose obtaining label definition information; selecting a subset of the label definition information. However, in the same field of endeavor Rogerson in an analogous art disclose obtaining label definition information (Fig. 3, Para [0010], [0021], [0032], defining label style for each label object or components and displaying information for each instance as specified by the label style (i.e., obtaining label definition), selecting a subset of the label definition information (Fig. 2-3, Para [0010], [0043], identifying (i.e., selecting) attribute such as font size, font color (i.e., label definition information)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate label definition information of an object type taught by Rogerson as the means to generating labels and placement of the label in a utility object in a map in Gyurdiev, (Gyurdiev, Fig. 3, item 130-132, Para [0010], Rogerson, Fig. 2-3, Para [0010]). Gyurdiev and Rogerson, are analogous prior art since they both deal with generating labels for an object in a map environment. A person of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make aforementioned modification to improve efficiency of labeling object in a map or any geospatial environment. This is because one aspect of Gyurdiev invention is to quickly and efficiently determine positions of labels on an object in an airport map as described in at least Para [0182]. Obtaining and selecting label definition information is part of this label creation and labeling process. However, Gyurdiev doesn’t specify any particular manner in which label definition information is obtained and selected. This would have lead one of the ordinary skill in the art to seek and recognize obtain and select label definition information as taught by Rogerson. Rogrson describes how their label definition information provides accurate and non-tedious way to label an object as described at least in Para [0007], as desired by Gyurdiev.
As per claim 2, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Gyurdiev discloses:
- wherein the at least one attribute includes one or more of symbol information, data, or mapping information (Fig. 9, Para [0066], [0100], attribute include symbol, text, (i.e., data)).
As per claim 3, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Gyurdiev discloses:
- enabling movement or deletion of the at least one label on the map view (Para [0005], [0132], [0168], moving or adjusting labels).
As per claim 4, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Rogerson discloses:
- updating an orientation, size, or placement of the at least one label defined by a respective label definition information when a scale or orientation of the map view is changed (Para [0042], [0046], the labels may be updated as drawing elements reflected in the label are modified (i.e., updating size or placement of the label)).
As per claim 5, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Rogerson discloses:
- generating a construction print corresponding to the updated map view (Para [0028], [0005], updated label shown on a display device (i.e., a construction print) used by engineers and other construction design professionals).
As per claim 6-9,
Claims 6-9 are device claims corresponding to method claims 1-4 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth to the rejection of claims 1-4 above.
As per claim 6-9,
Claims 10-14 are computer readable medium claims corresponding to method claims 1-5 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth to the rejection of claims 1-5 above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED R UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3138. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at (571) 272-4080. 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.
/MOHAMMED R UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights