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 1-5 are pending and examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 8/8/25.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim elements include:
“an operation status acquisition unit that acquires the operation status of each public transportation facility”
“a tactile paving information acquisition unit that acquires tactile paving information”
“a map generation unit that generates a map”
“a voice guidance unit that provides voice guidance”
None of the above “units” include structural support within the specification.
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 1-5 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.
Claim 2 recites the following claim limitation:
“proposes a safe route to the user”
It is unclear as to what route is considered ‘safe’. The specification provides no definition as to what is intended by ‘safe’ which may vary widely depending on who is using the device and where they may be located. A safe route for a local might not be considered safe for a tourist for example. Without a finite definition of what is considered safe, the claim is considered indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the following claim limitation:
“the map generation unit preferentially proposes routes that allow the user to feel a sense of security”
The phrase “preferentially” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Additionally, the claim element “allow the user to feel a sense of security” does not adequately provide a finite definition of the claimed element for the same reasons as described with regards to “safe” above. What might allow one person to feel a sense of security might not be the same to a different person and so on. Without having a finite definition of what a sense of security entails or how it is determined, the claim is considered indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites:
“5. The system according to claim 1, wherein the map generation unit also provides route guidance for elderly people and children other than visually and hearing- impaired persons.”
It is unclear as to whether the claim is intending to include elderly people and children and exclude visually and hearing-impaired persons, if it is including only elderly people and children without visual or hearing impairments, or any other configuration. No preceding claim elements have suggested including or excluding specific groupings of people. In addition to the unclear groupings of people to be included or excluded from the route guidance, it is unclear as to what including or excluding certain groups of people from being capable of utilizing the route guidance would further limit the claim as nothing in any preceding claims specifically excluded them from consideration previously. Without a finite definition of who is specifically intended to be included or excluded and how that physically impacts the process, the claim is considered indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim limitations in claims 1-5 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“an operation status acquisition unit that acquires the operation status of each public transportation facility”
“a tactile paving information acquisition unit that acquires tactile paving information”
“a map generation unit that generates a map”
“a voice guidance unit that provides voice guidance”
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no disclosure of corresponding structure to any of the claimed "units" within the applicant's specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim does not include additional material which further limits the preceding claim. It simply states that additional groups of people may be able to use the system. Since there was nothing in the preceding claim that suggested the system could not be utilized for elderly or children or that this system is exclusively designed for visually and hearing- impaired persons, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims discuss a device that falls under a machine in Step 1.
In Step 2A, Prong One, the device falls under an abstract idea as a mental process with nothing more than a generic computer.
Simply acquiring information and processing it into a map which is able to be audibly shared can be performed within a human mind even with the use of a generic computer does not recite any additional elements to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
In Step 2B the claim does not recite additional claim elements that can amount to significantly more to overcome the Judicial Exception. Acquiring data is insignificant presolutionary activity, generating a map based on acquired information is a mental process and the ability to provide guidance based on that map is insignificant postsolutionary activity.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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. Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
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 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.
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Epperlein et al. (US 2018/0274927).
Regarding claim 1, Epperlein discloses a cognitive journey companion system including a system comprising (Abstract):
an operation status acquisition unit that acquires the operation status of each public transportation facility (¶30-34 – ontology includes journey planning such as travel information, reservations, transportation options, modes of travel including multimodal travel planning utilizing subways/trains/etc. corresponding to the recited operation status of each public transport facility);
a tactile paving information acquisition unit that acquires tactile paving information from each local government (¶30-34 - ontology includes environmental data, traffic data, routes, roads, streets, highways, interstates, trails, bridges, maps, airports, and/or a variety of infrastructures relating to travel each having information relating to both size, length, a degree of complexity or difficulty of travel (e.g., travel navigation complexity), visibility, problems or issues relating to road work or repair, and/or traffic congestion where route data including problems/issues/repairs on the route and infrastructure corresponds to the recited tactile paving information as difficulty of problems/issues/repairs on the route may include damaged or incomplete repairs to a walking path corresponding to the recited tactile paving information which is acquired from governmental data sources corresponding to the recited from each local government);
a map generation unit that generates a map based on the information acquired by the operation status acquisition unit and the tactile paving information acquisition unit (¶30-38 - risk-aware cognitive journey companion system provides ... mitigate[s] the various types of risks associated with a journey including mapping out the routes and actions along that route based on the ontology corresponding to the recited generating a map based on the acquired information); and
a voice guidance unit that provides voice guidance based on the map generated by the map generation unit (¶101 - the risk-aware cognitive journey companion system may inform (via a variety of methods such as audible communication, media feeds, text, emails, and the like) [of] the suggested route requires fewer turns based on the ontology generated journey path corresponding to the recited voice guidance based on the map).
Regarding claim 2, Epperlein further discloses wherein the operation status acquisition unit simultaneously collects weather and disaster information and proposes a safe route to the user (¶102-106 – event data including social media information, weather, traffic conditions, environmental conditions, alerts, route conditions, events, accidents, news information, emergency data information, data obtained in real time is used to suggest routes based on reducing a negative impact upon safety to the user).
Regarding claim 3, Epperlein further discloses wherein the map generation unit analyzes the user's movement history and provides a route individually optimized for the user (¶34 and ¶101-106 – ontology includes historical data relating to a user including historical data relating to previous routes/destination data of the user in order to perform an optimization operation to find one or more best/optimal alternative routes to the predicted destinations).
Regarding claim 4, Epperlein further discloses wherein the map generation unit preferentially proposes routes that allow the user to feel a sense of security (¶38 - providing suggestions to mitigate the various types of risks associated with a journey includes events having a negative impact upon safety, convenience, a duration of travel, level of enjoyment of the user or a vehicle associated with the user, or a combination where increased safety and level of enjoyment corresponding to the recited allowing a user to feel a sense of security).
Regarding claim 5, Epperlein further discloses wherein the map generation unit also provides route guidance for elderly people and children other than visually and hearing- impaired persons (¶34 – ontology utilized for generating a journey corresponding to the recited providing route guidance includes a user profile including calendar information, historical data relating to previous routes/destination data of the user, emotional/physical/mental condition of the user, preferences, priorities, biomedical data, psychophysical parameters of the user, medical history, emotional data, a drivers skills set, and the like) where medical history includes age and impairment data corresponding to the recited guidance for elderly people and children and visually and hearing- impaired persons. Due to the 35 USC 112 rejections above, the claim is being interpreted utilizing BRI to show consideration of user specific age/medical information for route guidance).
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Muncaster et al. (US 2004/0155815) discloses a wireless navigational system capable of providing safe navigation information for both non-visually impaired individuals as well as visually impaired individuals (¶27-37).
Rui Da Silva Freitas (US 2011/0172907) discloses an orientation, navigation and information system, especially adapted for blind or visually impaired people. It is essentially a system that allows blind or visually impaired people to access information usually made available only to public transportation users visually, through posters or informative signs, or through dynamic information screens of various nature. It allows, first of all, the access to information from the outside or within private or public facilities or locations, using a conventional mobile phone (2) equipped with one or more additional communication channels, or a wireless communicator, and in second place, it allows also, simultaneously, the orientation and navigation of the system user(s), through places of interest (20), according to their instructions, using a discreet and non-obstructive system of acoustic emitters (3, 17), and using also a cell system or radio communication network (6) like Bluetooth and/or Wi-Fi and/or others, inserted in and related with the places of interest of the user (1). This allows the user to know his (her) accurate localization and can guide his (her) route. The present orientation, navigation and information system can also be used by people without visual impairment, by adapting the system, for example, to display orientation instructions visually. (Abstract).
Szigeti (US 2021/0356279) discloses an optimal navigation planning system including utilizing government based data sources as well as audible notifications for providing route guidance to a user (¶19 and ¶209-210).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-4 ET.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights