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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 8/11/2025. Accordingly, claims 1- 18 are pending.
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- 18—in particular Independent claims 1 & 16—are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite acquiring, storing and providing data. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. But for the memory language, the claims encompass a user simply comparing the collected data to a predetermined/configurable threshold in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic bus, processor and memory does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process which is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the elements of acquiring, storing and providing and that a generic computer preform these steps. The acquiring and storing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving/transmitting and storing data for use in the providing steps), and as such they amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor that performs the acquiring and storing steps is recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the acquiring and storing steps. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the acquiring, storing and providing steps were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claims 2-15 and 17-18 they all depend from claims 1 & 16 and as such are rejected for having the same deficiencies as those presented above with respect to claims 1 & 16.
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 1-4, 7-13 & 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenning et al. (US 2018/0328753 A1) in view of Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen Learning from Unlabeled 3D Environments for Vision-and-Language Navigation).
As per claim 1 Stenning discloses: a method for providing navigation and interaction assistance comprising:
acquiring data about an object or an environment using a perception module (see Stenning at least fig. 1-11 in particular fig. 1, 2, 5 & 8 and Abstract, Background and Summary; sensors [110] localization utilizing WiFi and SLAM);
storing the data in a working memory module, wherein the working memory module receives the data from the perception module and integrates the data with other information stored in the working memory module (see Stenning at least fig. 1-11 in particular fig. 1, 2, 5 & 8 and Abstract, Background and Summary; memory [104] & computer [132]).
However, Stenning does not appear to explicitly disclose providing output based on processing of the information, wherein the output comprises conversational speech.
Nevertheless, Chen—who is in the same field of endeavor—discloses providing output based on processing of the information, wherein the output comprises conversational speech (see Chen at least pg. 2; synthesizing more instructions and trajectories in seen environments by a speaker model).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chen’s generation of synthesized speech with those of Raven’s location mapping in order to provide for a better and more intuitive overall user experience (i.e., by allowing interaction by using synthesized speech).
Motivation to combine Chen with Raven not only comes from knowledge well known in the art but also from Chen (see at least Background and Summary).
Both Raven and Chen disclose claim 2: wherein the perception module performs at least one of object detection, speech recognition, and spatial anchor detection (see Stenning at least fig. 1-11 in particular fig. 1, 2, 5 & 8 and Abstract, Background and Summary; see Chen at least pg. 2-4).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Raven and Chen, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Raven and Chen disclose claim 3: wherein the output provides wayfinding in a shopping mall, medical facility, transportation facility, office building, or similar environment (see Stenning at least fig. 1-11 in particular fig. 1, 2, 5 & 8 and Abstract, Background and Summary; see Chen at least pg. 2-4).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Raven and Chen, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Raven and Chen disclose claim 4: wherein the output further provides context-dependent information related to a route provided in the wayfinding (see Stenning at least fig. 1-11 in particular fig. 1, 2, 5 & 8 and Abstract, Background and Summary; see Chen at least pg. 2-4).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Raven and Chen, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Raven and Chen disclose claim 7: wherein a motor module generates the conversational speech (see Stenning at least fig. 1-11 in particular fig. 1, 2, 5 & 8 and Abstract, Background and Summary; see Chen at least pg. 2-4).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Raven and Chen, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Raven and Chen disclose claim 8: wherein a procedural memory module drives a cognitive cycle using information stored in the working memory module, wherein the cognitive cycle produces a complex behavior related to planning, reasoning, or other complex tasks based on goals of a user (see Stenning at least fig. 1-11 in particular fig. 1, 2, 5 & 8 and Abstract, Background and Summary; see Chen at least pg. 2-4).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Raven and Chen, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Raven and Chen disclose claim 9: wherein the goal comprises at least one of a request for guidance, a request for guidance with contextual information, a request for recommendation, a request for recommendation with for alternative options, a request for recommendation with multiple destinations, a request for item comparison, a request to locate an object, a request to look around, a request to search for an object, and a request for guidance with an alternative route (see Stenning at least fig. 1-11 in particular fig. 1, 2, 5 & 8 and Abstract, Background and Summary; see Chen at least pg. 2-4).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Raven and Chen, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Raven and Chen disclose claim 10: wherein the information comprises a description of the features of an object or a spatial anchor (see Stenning at least fig. 1-11 in particular fig. 1, 2, 5 & 8 and Abstract, Background and Summary; see Chen at least pg. 2-5).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Raven and Chen, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Raven and Chen disclose claim 11: wherein the information further comprises a set of structured slot-value pairs, a recency clock, describes a goal of a user, and is indexed (see Stenning at least fig. 1-11 in particular fig. 1, 2, 5 & 8 and Abstract, Background and Summary; see Chen at least pg. 2-5).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Raven and Chen, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Raven and Chen disclose claim 12: wherein a declarative memory module stores factual information about an external environment or objects located in the external environment (see Stenning at least fig. 1-11 in particular fig. 1, 2, 5 & 8 and Abstract, Background and Summary; see Chen at least pg. 2-5).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Raven and Chen, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Raven and Chen disclose claim 13: wherein the external environment or objects located in the external environment includes at least one of a location, a store, a product, inventory, pricing, and similar information (see Stenning at least fig. 1-11 in particular fig. 1, 2, 5 & 8 and Abstract, Background and Summary; see Chen at least pg. 2-5).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Raven and Chen, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Raven and Chen disclose claim 15: further comprising processing speech requests from a user on a large language model stored on an external device (see Stenning at least fig. 1-11 in particular fig. 1, 2, 5 & 8 and Abstract, Background and Summary; see Chen at least pg. 2-5).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Raven and Chen, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Raven and Chen disclose claim 16: a system for providing navigation and interaction assistance comprising: an electronic device adapted perform the following functions: acquiring data about an object or an environment using a perception module; storing the data in a working memory module, wherein the working memory module receives the data from the perception module and integrates the data with other information stored in the working memory module; and providing output based on processing of the information, wherein the output comprises conversational speech (see Stenning at least fig. 1-11 in particular fig. 1, 2, 5 & 8 and Abstract, Background and Summary; see Chen at least pg. 2-5; see claim 1 above).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Raven and Chen, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Raven and Chen disclose claim 17: wherein the electronic device comprises a smartphone have at least one sensor selected from the group consisting of an optical camera, a light detection and ranging scanner, and a depth camera (see Stenning at least fig. 1-11 in particular fig. 1, 2, 5 & 8 and Abstract, Background and Summary; see Chen at least pg. 2-5).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Raven and Chen, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Raven and Chen disclose claim 18: further comprising: an external database in communication with the electronic device (see Stenning at least fig. 1-11 in particular fig. 1, 2, 5 & 8 and Abstract, Background and Summary; see Chen at least pg. 2-5).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Raven and Chen, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Claims 5-6 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raven and Chen and further in view of Rathod (US2022/0179665 A1).
As per claim 5, Raven and Chen disclose the invention as detailed above.
However, neither Raven nor Chen appear to explicitly disclose wherein the output further provides recommendations based on a user input.
Nevertheless, Rathod—who is in the same field of endeavor—discloses wherein the output further provides recommendations based on a user input (see Rahod at least fig. 1-101, in particular fig. 1-5 & 77 and Abstract & par. 812-827 & 884; recommending POIs, on demand service system [170]).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Rathod’s interacting with a system using keywords with those of Raven and Chen’s in order to provide for a better overall user experience (i.e., by analyzing user input and inferring user intent to provide personalized recommendations).
Motivation to combine Rathod with Raven and Chen not only comes from knowledge well known in the art, but also from Rathod (see Rathod at least Field of Invention, Background and Summary).
The combination of Raven, Chen and Rathod disclose claim 6: wherein the output further provides recommendations based on a user input and inferred user intent (see Stenning at least fig. 1-11 in particular fig. 1, 2, 5 & 8 and Abstract, Background and Summary; see Chen at least pg. 2-5; and see Rathod at least fig. 1-101, in particular fig. 1-5 & 77 and Abstract & par. 812-827 & 884).
Motivation to combine Rathod with Raven & Chen, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 5 above.
The combination of Raven, Chen and Rathod disclose claim 14: wherein information comprises an event comprising a situation that occurs in a certain time interval (see Stenning at least fig. 1-11 in particular fig. 1, 2, 5 & 8 and Abstract, Background and Summary; see Chen at least pg. 2-5; and see Rathod at least fig. 1-101, in particular fig. 1-5 & 77 and Abstract & par. 812-827 & 884).
Motivation to combine Rathod with Raven & Chen, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 5 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MACEEH ANWARI whose telephone number is 571-272-7591. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-9:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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.
MACEEH . ANWARI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3663
/MACEEH ANWARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights