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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: With respect to claim 6, the applicant claims “wherein the first location on the first road”. The examiner believes this to be a typographical error and recommends changing it to “wherein the first location is on the first road”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 3 and 13, the applicant claims “a connection line intersection point between the first feature location and the first road”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation. There’s an infinite number of lines between the first feature location and the first road and it’s not clear which one to pick. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “based on a first distance between the first feature location and the first location”.
With respect to claims 5 and 15, the applicant claims “hiding the first road feature”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation. Is it deleting the road feature, masking it with another layer of information, or minimizing it. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “deleting the road feature”.
With respect to claims 9 and 19, the applicant claims displaying a first navigation route before displaying the first road on the navigation interface. It is not clear to the examiner what the difference is between a first navigation route and a first road. Is the navigation route an original route determined by the system based on an origin and a destination. The definition of a navigation route is missing. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as the first navigation route and the first road to be the same.
With respect to claims 9 and 19, the applicant claims “querying, based on the first navigation route, a second navigation route”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with the limitation “querying”. Is “querying” related to a user input, a user preference, or an automatic determination based on a divergence from the first navigation route. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as a regular update of the first navigation route.
With respect to claims 10 and 20, the applicant claims “a first navigation time” and “a second navigation time”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation. Is it a time to destination or is it a time that the user has been on the navigation route, i.e travel time. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as a time to the destination or point of interest.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claims 1 and 11 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) displaying a navigation interface, display a first road, moving to a first location and a first road feature corresponding to the first location.
The limitations of displaying a navigation interface, display a first road, moving to a first location and a first road feature corresponding to the first location, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting a memory and one or more processors, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a memory and one or more processors” language, the recited limitations in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually drawing a road and it’s feature on a map using a pen and a paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite “a memory and one or more processors” to perform the recited steps. The “a memory and one or more processors” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a memory and one or more processors to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 12-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims recite additional steps that can be performed mentally and fall under the mental process bucket of abstract ideas. The claims do not recite any additional element that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea in order to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshioka et al US 2007/0078599 A1 (hence Yoshioka).
In re claims 1 and 11, Yoshioka discloses a map display device which scroll-displays a travel route from a current driving location to a destination on an entire screen (Abstract) and teaches the following:
displaying a navigation interface (Fig.1, and Paragraph 0006 “a current display screen while a vehicle position 21 shows a current driving state”, and Fig.2, #110, and Paragraph 0102 “the display unit 110”);
displaying a first road on the navigation interface (Fig.1, and Paragraphs 0005-0006 “an optimal road 22 to the destination”);
moving to a first location (Fig.3, and Paragraph 0118 “ route information (destination and route to a destination) in the display unit”);
and displaying, on the first road on the navigation interface, a first road feature corresponding to the first location (Fig.3, and Paragraph 0118 “commercial information and facility information”)
In re claims 2 and 12, Yoshioka teaches the following:
wherein the first road feature comprises a first feature location, and wherein the method further comprises determining, based on the first feature location, a first display location of the first road feature (Fig.6 and Paragraph 0122 “when tracking the optimal route 302 from the destination restaurant 303 to the current position 301, a junction of three streets in "3 cho-me", "supermarket", "intersection on the main street", "2 cho-me Post Office", "Convenience Store", "1 cho-me Intersection", "Bookstore", "City Hall Bus Stop" and "City Hall" appears along the optimal route 302 in this order.”)
In re claims 3 and 13, Yoshioka teaches the following:
determining the first display location based on a connection line intersection point between the first feature location and the first road or based on a first distance between the first feature location and the first location (Fig.6 and Paragraph 0122 “when tracking the optimal route 302 from the destination restaurant 303 to the current position 301, a junction of three streets in "3 cho-me", "supermarket", "intersection on the main street", "2 cho-me Post Office", "Convenience Store", "1 cho-me Intersection", "Bookstore", "City Hall Bus Stop" and "City Hall" appears along the optimal route 302 in this order.”)
In re claims 4 and 14, Yoshioka teaches the following:
wherein the first distance meets a first distance condition (Fig.3, #310 and Paragraph 0121 “the map information of H cm high and W cm wide (i.e. a partial map is of 2H cm high, 2W cm wide)”)
In re claims 5 and 15, Yoshioka teaches the following:
moving from the first location to a second location; and hiding the first road feature (Fig.6, different frames 401-403 showing different features 311-312)
In re claims 6 and 16, Yoshioka teaches the following:
wherein the first location is on the first road (Fig.3)
In re claims 7 and 17, Yoshioka teaches the following:
displaying, on the first road on the navigation interface, a second road feature (Fig.9 and Paragraph 0124 “In the scroll screens 405 and 406, "Main Street Intersection" and "2 cho-me Post Office" are displayed as landmarks”)
In re claims 8 and 18, Yoshioka teaches the following:
wherein displaying the second road feature comprises displaying at least one of, a city image feature, a city activity feature, a city tourism feature, a city historical feature, or a city humanistic feature (Paragraph 0124 “"police station" on the scroll screen 410, "City Hall Bus Stop"”)
In re claims 9 and 19, Yoshioka teaches the following:
wherein before displaying the first road on the navigation interface, the method further comprises: displaying a first navigation route on the navigation interface; querying, based on the first navigation route, a second navigation route that comprises the first road to obtain a query result; and displaying the query result on the navigation interface (Fig.6 and Paragraph 0122 “sequentially displays a scroll screen in a direction from the destination toward the current position”)
In re claims 10 and 20, Yoshioka teaches the following:
wherein displaying the query result comprises: displaying the first navigation route and a first navigation time of the first navigation route (Fig.6, “arrival time”); displaying the first navigation route, the first navigation time and a second navigation time of the second navigation route; or displaying the second navigation route and a time difference between first navigation time and the second navigation time
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al US 2024/0062432 A1 discloses an augmented reality (AR) service platform for providing an augmented reality service.
Trum et al US 2013/0173159 A1 discloses calculate routes to one or more destinations, and provide a navigation instruction together with an alternative navigation instruction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights