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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were originally presented having a filing date of August 22, 2025 and claiming priority to Korean Application KR10-2025-0035368 that was filed on March 19, 2025.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
There was no Information Disclosure Statement filed with this application.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “communication unit” in claim 11. The corresponding structure for “communication unit” is described, at least, in the specification in [0070], “the communication unit 130 be implemented by the processor 120. The communication unit 130 may include a communication interface including a physical connection in hardware.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally
link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process).
Claim 11 is directed to a terminal (i.e., an apparatus).
Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 11 (which is representative of claim 1) includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Claim 11 recites:
A terminal for providing navigation, the terminal comprising:
a communication unit configured to transmit to a server, a request signal that requests a tile configured to update and display map information based on the map information needing to be updated on a navigation screen on which one or more tiles, obtained by segmenting the map information into predetermined regional units, are combined and displayed, and receive a response signal from the server in response to the transmittal of the request signal; and
a processor configured to update a cache of the terminal storing the map information based on the response signal,
wherein the request signal comprises an identifier (ID) of the required tile.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, ”update … map information based on the map information needing to be updated…on which one or more tiles, obtained by segmenting the map information into predetermined regional units” in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing these limitations in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A terminal for providing navigation, the terminal comprising:
a communication unit configured to transmit to a server, a request signal that requests a tile configured to update and display map information based on the map information needing to be updated on a navigation screen on which one or more tiles, obtained by segmenting the map information into predetermined regional units, are combined and displayed, and receive a response signal from the server in response to the transmittal of the request signal; and
a processor configured to update a cache of the terminal storing the map information based on the response signal,
wherein the request signal comprises an identifier (ID) of the required tile.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a communication unit configured to transmit to a server, a request signal that requests a tile configured to …, and receive a response signal from the server in response to the transmittal of the request signal”; and “a processor configured to update a cache of the terminal storing the map information based on the response signal, wherein the response signal comprises an identifier (ID) of the required tile”, they merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose navigation environment. The communication unit, server, and processor are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the abstract idea steps.
Regarding the additional element “display…on a navigation screen…are combined and displayed”, it is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the map tiles) and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a communication unit, a server, and a processor to perform the ”update … map information based on the map information needing to be updated…on which one or more tiles, obtained by segmenting the map information into predetermined regional units” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “a communication unit configured to transmit to a server, a request signal that requests a tile configured to …, and receive a response signal from the server in response to the transmittal of the request signal”; “a processor configured to update a cache of the terminal storing the map information based on the response signal, wherein the response signal comprises an identifier (ID) of the required tile”; and “display…on a navigation screen…are combined and displayed” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “a communication unit configured to transmit to a server, a request signal that requests a tile configured to …, and receive a response signal from the server in response to the transmittal of the request signal”, and “a processor configured to update a cache of the terminal storing the map information based on the response signal, wherein the response signal comprises an identifier (ID) of the required tile”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a navigation system. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp. 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), 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.
The additional limitation of “display…on a navigation screen…are combined and displayed” is mere displaying of data and is a well understood, routine, and conventional function, as held by the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084,1092 (Fed. Cir.), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v., Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12-20 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 12-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claims 1-10 are analogous to claims 11-20 and, therefore, are rejected under 35 USC 101 for the same reasons as outlined for claims 11-10.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schechter (DE 10 2015 206519 A1) in view of Carbune, et al. (Publication US 2022/0316917 A1) and Swanson (Publication US 2021/0095963 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Schechter”, “Carbune”, and “Swanson”.)
As per claim 11 (representative of claim 1), Schechter discloses a terminal for providing navigation, the terminal comprising:
a communication unit [see at least Schechter page 8, last paragraph "…flowchart of the communication between navigation system…and map database..."] configured to
transmit to a server, a request signal that requests a tile configured to update and display map information based on the map information needing to be updated on a navigation screen on which one or more tiles, obtained by segmenting the map information into predetermined regional units, are combined …, and receive a response signal from the server in response to the transmittal of the request signal [see at least Schechter page 5, para 3 "…a method for updating map data in one A vehicle, wherein the map data is divided into map tiles, the vehicle having a map data memory … inquiring at a server whether stored map tiles are up to date within the update boundary, and updating the map tiles"; page 6, para 2 "...the request includes whether stored map tiles are current: sending the version identification of the map tiles."; page 2, last paragraph "The reference map tile is stored...in a central server and always kept up to date."; page 8, last paragraph "…flowchart of the communication between navigation system…and map database..."; page 1, first paragraph "navigation system 1 comprises...a display...means for wireless data transmission and input means"; page 6, para 4 "...The updating limit may result from the combination of the areas..."]; and
a processor [see at least Schechter page 8, para 4 "This package is processed by the navigation system and imported into the map database of the navigation system."] configured to
update … the terminal storing the map information based on the response signal [see at least Schechter page 5, last paragraph "… update in a navigation device not the complete map data ... but only the map data describing tiles surrounding the vehicle position…"; page 8, last paragraph "…flowchart of the communication between navigation system…and map database... ."],
wherein the request signal comprises an identifier (ID) of the required tile [see at least Schechter page 2, para 2 "…the map tiles respectively associated with version identifications..."; p. 2, last paragraph "… changes to be made to the map tile stored in the vehicle in relation to a reference map tile are to be determined on the basis of an identifier…"]
Schechter fails to disclose … map tiles combined and displayed … . However, Carbune discloses this limitation [see at least Carbune [0037] "...the application may combine each descendant node map tile into a composite representation of the state of Kansas for display to the user."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal as disclosed in Schechter to use … map tiles combined and displayed … as disclosed in Carbune with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of identifying optimal map tiles for display to the user. [See at least Carbune [0001].]
The combination of Schechter and Carbune fails to disclose … updating a cache of the terminal … . However, Swanson teaches this limitation [see at least Swanson Abstract "...update a mapping tile disposed in a tile cache to derive an updated mapping tile based on the signal… ."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal as disclosed in the combination of Schechter and Carbune to use … updating a cache of the terminal … as disclosed in Swanson with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of increased rendering speed and improved level of detail. [See at least Swanson [0015].]
As per claim 12 (representative of claim 2), the combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
Schechter discloses …wherein based on a tile stored in the server being identical to a tile stored in the terminal, the response signal includes data having an empty body [see at least Schechter page 3, para 2 "In this way, no complete map tile must be transferred to the vehicle, but only the necessary changes."]
As per claim 13 (representative of claim 3), the combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
Schechter discloses … wherein based on a tile stored in the server being different from a tile stored in the terminal, the response signal has a body comprising tile data for updating the cache of the terminal [see at least Schechter Abstract "…providing …a version identification of a map tile from a vehicle; determining a change identification for the map tile based on the version identification; determining the change of the map data between the map tile included in the vehicle and a reference map tile by means of the change identification; sending the change of the map data to the vehicle."]
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schechter, in view of Carbune, Swanson, and Westra, et al. (Publication US 2015/0277114 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Westra”.)
As per claim 14 (representative of claim 4), the combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
The combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson fails to disclose … wherein the request signal is transmitted using Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). However, Westra teaches this limitation [see at least Westra [0036] "...the vehicle system 202 may transmit a hyper-text transfer protocol (herein known as HTTP) request over Ethernet 210 to a remote server 204 hosting web pages and interfaces. The HTTP request may allow the VCS 202 to upload the web page 204 and/or data from the webpage 204 for output at the infotainment system. For example, the VCS 202 may transmit an HTTP request over Ethernet to a map service 208 to retrieve navigation map tiles and application programming interfaces (APIs). The VCS 202 may transmit the navigation map tiles to one or more displays including the instrument cluster display 214."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal as disclosed in the combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson to use … wherein the request signal is transmitted using Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) as disclosed in Westra with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of using a high speed network to manage data between control modules. [See at least Westra [0001].]
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schechter, in view of Carbune, Swanson, and Rasmussen, et al. (Publication WO 2005/094466 A2) (hereinafter referred to as “Rasmussen”.)
As per claim 15 (representative of claim 5), the combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
The combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson fails to disclose … wherein each tile is formed as a separate file. However, Rasmussen teaches this limitation [see at least Rasmussen [0071] "One approach is give each tile a file name and store it as an individual file. The tiles can then be placed on a server that makes them available by requests locally or over a network."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal as disclosed in the combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson to use … wherein each tile is formed as a separate file as disclosed in Rasmussen with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of files being queried in a consistent manner. [See at least Rasmussen [0055].]
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schechter, in view of Carbune, Swanson, and Yin (Publication CM 109783183A) (hereinafter referred to as “Yin”.)
As per claim 16 (representative of claim 6), the combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
Schechter discloses … wherein the processor is configured to: generate a request signal for requesting the tile from the server [see at least Schechter page 5, para 3 "…a method for updating map data in one A vehicle, wherein the map data is divided into map tiles, the vehicle having a map data memory … inquiring at a server whether stored map tiles are up to date within the update boundary.”]
The combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson fails to disclose … push the request signal into a queue in the terminal; and sequentially pop request signals stored in the queue and transmit the request signals to the server. However, Yin teaches these limitations:
… push the request signal into a queue in the terminal [see at least Yin "when the service module initiates a dialog box display request to the scheduling module, the scheduling module can push the request to the queue tail of the cache module, … ."]; and
sequentially pop request signals stored in the queue and transmit the request signals to the server [see at least Yin "...and checking the queue length of the request queue, if the queue length is equal to 1, then meaning that there is no dialog box in the display state, only one request in the queue is just received, the pop-up request needs to be executed immediately, the scheduling module can send the request of the queue head to the rendering module, displaying to the user, for human-computer interaction."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal as disclosed in the combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson to use … push the request signal into a queue in the terminal; and sequentially pop request signals stored in the queue and transmit the request signals to the server as disclosed in Yin with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving the processing of a display request. [See at least Yin p. 9, para 2].]
Claims 7-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schechter, in view of Carbune, Swanson, and Denoue, et al. (Publication US 2010/00268694 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Denoue”.)
As per claim 17 (representative of claim 7), the combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
Schechter discloses … wherein the request signal further comprises a … value of the required tile [see at least Schechter page 6, para 2 "...the request includes whether stored map tiles are current: sending the version identification of the map tiles."]
The combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson fails to disclose … a hash value of the required tile. However, Denoue teaches this limitation [see at least Denoue [0116] "...In some embodiments, the presenter computer system 602 computes the signature of the compressed tile by computing a hash value of the compressed tile using a hash function. For example, the presenter computer system uses a MD5 hashing function to generate a hash value of the compressed tile."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal as disclosed in the combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson to use … a hash value of the required tile as disclosed in Denoue with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of more efficient transmission of visual tile data. [See at least Denoue [0005], [0009].]
As per claim 18 (representative of claim 8), the combination of Schechter, Carbune, Swanson, and Denoue, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 17.
The combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson fails to disclose … wherein different hash values are assigned to different tiles. However, Denoue teaches this limitation [see at least Denoue [0116] "...In some embodiments, the presenter computer system 602 computes the signature of the compressed tile by computing a hash value of the compressed tile using a hash function."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal as disclosed in the combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson to use … wherein different hash values are assigned to different tiles as disclosed in Denoue with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of more efficient transmission of visual tile data. [See at least Denoue [0005], [0009].]
As per claim 19 (representative of claim 9), the combination of Schechter, Carbune, Swanson, and Denoue, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 17.
The combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson fails to disclose … wherein the hash value is generated by a hash function. However, Denoue teaches this limitation [see at least Denoue [0116] "...In some embodiments, the presenter computer system 602 computes the signature of the compressed tile by computing a hash value of the compressed tile using a hash function."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal as disclosed in the combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson to use … wherein the hash value is generated by a hash function as disclosed in Denoue with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of more efficient transmission of visual tile data. [See at least Denoue [0005], [0009].]
As per claim 20 (representative of claim 10), the combination of Schechter, Carbune, Swanson, and Denoue, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 19.
The combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson fails to disclose … wherein the hash function is a Message-Digest algorithm 5 (MD5) function. However, Denoue teaches this limitation [see at least Denoue [0116] "...In some embodiments, the presenter computer system 602 computes the signature of the compressed tile by computing a hash value of the compressed tile using a hash function. For example, the presenter computer system uses a MD5 hashing function to generate a hash value of the compressed tile."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal as disclosed in the combination of Schechter, Carbune, and Swanson to use … wherein the hash function is a Message-Digest algorithm 5 (MD5) function as disclosed in Denoue with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of more efficient transmission of visual tile data. [See at least Denoue [0005], [0009].]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights