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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 108d, 108e, and 108f. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 45, 47, 180d, 180e, 180f, 109e, 109f, 111d, and 1101. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
“Road link” is being interpreted as a road that spans between two points of interest (i.e. destinations, waypoints, origins, or intersections) as shown in Figure 6.
“Theme” is being interpreted as a user preference for the contents of a route in light of example themes in ¶ 0074 of the specification being a scenic route preference, a beach road preference, and a minimal traffic congestion preference.
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(s) is/are:
In claim(s) 10, the “computing device” in the limitation “A method, performed by a computing device, for displaying a route using a drawing gesture” invokes 112(f) as “device” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the performance of a method for displaying a route using a drawing gesture.
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.
Regarding the computing device, a review of the disclosure (Figure 17, ¶ 0048, and ¶ 0057) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
PNG
media_image1.png
808
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
"In addition, the navigation device 100 may include a computing device with a touch display embedded in a vehicle, a computing device (e.g., a vehicle navigation device, and a smartphone with a navigation application) with a touch display that may be separately attached to the vehicle, and a computing device (e.g., a smartphone, and a tablet computer) with a touch display that the user is using to check the route" (¶ 0048).
"In an embodiment, the computing device may be the navigation device and/or the navigation server described above with reference to FIG. 1" (¶ 0057).
Each of these quoted sections provides a different structural embodiment for the computing device.
Figure 17 discloses that the computer device may include a processor, memory storing a program, storage storing a program, communication interface, and a bus.
¶ 0048 discloses other example computing devices as a vehicle navigation device, a smartphone, or a tablet. Vehicle navigation device is another nonce term as “device” does not provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed method. The structure of a vehicle navigation device is not detailed further in the specification and thus cannot be interpreted on its merits (see 112(b) rejection below).
¶ 0057 discloses other example computing devices as a navigation device, or a navigation server. A navigation device is another nonce term as “device” does not provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed method. ¶ 0057 clearly indicates that the navigation device was previously defined. Viewing ¶ 0048 which defines a navigation device, the definition appears to be cyclical. I.e., a navigation device is defined as comprising a computing device which is further defined as being the aforementioned navigation device. No logical structure is defined in this infinite recursion created between ¶ 0048 and ¶ 0057 unless one chooses to interpret the computing device in light of only ¶ 0048 while ignoring ¶ 0057. Therefore, the computing device as a navigation device cannot be interpreted on its merits (see 112(b) rejection below).
For the purpose of examination, the computing device will only be interpreted as being one of the definite example embodiments detailed above.
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 § 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 4-5 and 10 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.
Regarding claim 4, the width of a free curve is paradoxically defined. In claim 2 which claim 4 depends upon, a road link is identified as being in an inner area of a defined width of a free curve. Meanwhile in claim 4, a density of a road link is identified to be within a reference value of a touch point wherein the width of the free curve is based on the road link’s density. Since the road link of claim 4 is antecedent to the road link of claim 2, a paradox occurs. One cannot obtain the road link of claim 2 without knowing the width defined in claim 4, but in order to know the width in claim 4, one much have already obtained the road link of claim 2. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Further regarding claim 4, it is unclear what the phrase “density of the road link” is meant to signify. Is a road link’s density how wide the road link is? Is it how congested the road link is? Is it the physical density of the road link’s paving material? This is not clear within the claims or the disclosure. ¶ 0071 appears to provide the best suggestion for interpretation of what density could be:
“Therefore, the width of the free curve may be automatically determined so that a road link of a certain range may exist in the inner area of the width of the free curve. Also, in areas with a high density of road links, too many road links may be identified in the inner area of the width of the free curve, and overload may occur in a computation required to select a road link and determine a route due to too many road links. Therefore, to prevent such overload, the width of the free curve may be automatically determined to limit the number of road links.”
Here, density appears to refer not to a feature of one road link but rather a number of road links per unit area. This is consistent with the well understood definition of density; however, this phrasing does not parallel the claim as written. Therefore, it is unclear what “density of the road link” is meant to indicate. For the purpose of examination, claim 4 will be interpreted as if reading as follows:
identifying a density of road links within a reference value from the touch point at which the drawing gesture is formed; and
determining the width of the free curve by using the identified density of the road links.
This interpretation is consistent with ¶ 0071 and resolves both 112(b) issues discussed. Examiner recommends amending claim 4 with this or similar wording.
Claim 5 reads “selecting the road link by a combination with a highest sum of the theme score.” It is unclear what a “combination” is meant to indicate in claim 5. The specification only repeats this phrasing in ¶ 0077 reading “each road link may be selected with a combination in which the sum of theme scores is maximized”. It is unclear if the combination is meant to be a combination of a plurality of road links, a combination of score elements for a single road link, or some other combination. For the purpose of examination, a combination will be interpreted as a combination of a plurality of road links as the theme score is intended to maximize the closeness to a theme for an entire route as shown in Figure 8 for example.
Claim 5 further reads “highest sum of the theme score”, however, there is only one theme score identified in claim 5, so no other theme scores exist to sum with. ¶ 0077, cited above, seems to indicate that multiple theme scores exist to create this sum. Due to the problematic use of “combination” as detailed above, however, it is unclear if summed theme scores as detailed in ¶ 0077 are from each road link of a plurality of road links or are from a single road link. Regardless, since the claim does not reflect the plurality detailed within the specification, how the sum of one score for one road link is achieved is not definitely detailed. For the purpose of examination, the sum will be interpreted as a sum of theme scores for a plurality of road links consistent with the combination being a combination of a plurality of road links as detailed above. Examiner recommends amending claim 5 to clearly indicate what the combination is and how the sum is achieved.
Regarding claim 10, claim limitation “computing device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. As detailed above, the potential structures of a vehicle navigation device and a navigation device are not clearly articulated in a way that definite structure can be obtained without a cyclical definition. 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.
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 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
determining a first route from a departure point to a destination by receiving a drawing gesture for determining the first route; and
displaying information on the first route, wherein
the drawing gesture is formed by free movement of a touch point on a touch display of the navigation terminal that is displaying a map, and
the free movement is movement of a touch point that is not limited to a road included in the map.
Claim 10 recites the following limitations:
receiving a drawing gesture for determining a first route from a departure point to a destination from a navigation terminal;
selecting the first route from a plurality of candidate routes corresponding to the drawing gesture by using information on the drawing gesture; and
transmitting information on the first route to the navigation terminal, wherein
the drawing gesture is formed by free movement of a touch point on a touch display of the navigation terminal that is displaying a map, and
the free movement is movement of a touch point that is not limited to a road included in the map.
Claim 11 recites the following limitations:
receiving a drawing gesture for changing an existing route displayed on a touch display of the navigation device;
determining a change route based on the existing route by using the drawing gesture; and
displaying information related to the change route, wherein:
the drawing gesture is formed by free movement of a touch point on the touch display of the navigation device that is displaying a map,
the free movement is free movement of the touch point from a first point of the existing route to a second point different from the first point, and moves a point different from a route between the first point and the second point on the existing route, and
the free movement is movement of a touch point that is not limited to a road included in the map.
The limitations recited above (a and c-d, A-B and D-E, and i-ii and iv-v), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a navigation device/terminal and a computing device, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person can, with pen and paper, draw a freeform line on a paper map indicating a rough route where they wish to travel (a, c-d, A, and D-E). The person can then mentally determine the best route from a number of possible routes that best matches to their drawing (a and B). If the person is dissatisfied, they can draw another freeform line on the map for a detour of the route from one spot on the route to a different spot on the route (i and iv-vi). The person can then mentally determine the new route based on their drawing (ii). 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 because the navigation device/terminal (including a touch display) and computing device (see 112(f) interpretation above for structure) is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The navigation terminal/device is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to use the navigation terminal/device as a tool for writing on a map. The abstract idea may still be adequately performed using a paper map instead. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The limitations of transmitting information to the navigation terminal (C) and displaying information and a map (b-c, iii-iv, and D) are insignificant extra post-solution activities of mere data transmission and mere display respectively. Mere data transmission and mere display cannot form an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the navigation terminal/device and computing device are generically claimed as detailed above. 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, and conventional (WURC) activity in the field. The limitation of transmitting data to a navigation terminal (C) is a WURC activity because buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) indicated that the mere transmission of data over a network is a WURC function. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The limitation of displaying information and a map (b-c, iii-iv, and D) is a WURC activity because Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018) indicated that the function of displaying information without limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result is a WURC function. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-3 and 5-9 do(es) not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim(s) is/are directed towards additional aspects of the abstract idea, additional details regarding the mere data transmission, and/or additional details regarding mere display.
Dependent claim(s) 4 recite(s) further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Claim 4, as interpreted for the purpose of examination as detailed in the 112(b) rejection above, requires setting a width of a drawn curve based on a density of road links near a user’s touch point that begin the drawing. This provides significant details about how a portion of the display result, i.e. the free curve’s width, is achieved. This thus implements the abstract idea into a practical application.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi US 9417083 B2 (hereinafter Yamaguchi).
Regarding claim 1,
Yamaguchi teaches
A method for displaying a route of a navigation terminal (Figure 1 display 18) by using a drawing gesture (Figures 3-7), the method comprising:
determining a first route from a departure point to a destination (Figure 12; see also Figure 11 for example) by receiving a drawing gesture for determining the first route (Figure 12 “accept freehand line” S1); and
displaying information on the first route (Figure 11),
wherein
the drawing gesture is formed by free movement of a touch point on a touch display of the navigation terminal that is displaying a map (Abstract “an input unit that accepts a line drawn on a map displayed based on map data”; see also column 3 lines 17-23 “The input unit 14 and the display may be formed… by a single piece of hardware such as a touch panel”), and
the free movement is movement of a touch point that is not limited to a road included in the map (Figure 3 freehand line 21).
Alternatively, claim 1 may be rejected under 102 in view of Nagy et al. US 20160209230 A1. See 102 rejection of claims 10-11 below for more details.
Regarding claim 2, Yamaguchi teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Yamaguchi further teaches that
the drawing gesture generates a free curve on the map (Figure 3),
the free curve has a width (column 3 lines 45-56 disclose that a link retrieval range for a drawn curve is predefined; examiner understands this range functions equivalently to the width as defined by the instant application), and
determining the first route includes:
identifying a road link in an inner area of the width of the free curve (Figure 5 shows road links, for example road links 25, being detected within the link retrieval range 24; see also column 3 lines 45-63), and
determining the first route by selecting the identified road link (column 3 line 64 to column 4 line 55 discloses identifying satisfactory road links and generating a route based on the satisfactory links).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nagy et al. US 20160209230 A1 (hereinafter Nagy).
Regarding claim 10,
Nagy teaches
A method, performed by a computing device (¶ 0033 discloses a device performs the method; ¶ 0041 discloses an example of a mobile device with a touch screen performing the method; see also Figure 3 where the mobile device is drawn as a conventional smart phone), for displaying a route using a drawing gesture (Abstract), the method comprising:
receiving a drawing gesture for determining a first route from a departure point to a destination from a navigation terminal (Figure 4 shows drawing a map on a touch screen);
selecting the first route from a plurality of candidate routes corresponding to the drawing gesture by using information on the drawing gesture (Abstract discloses that a suggested route is selected from a plurality of possible routes that could satisfy a user’s drawn route based on minimizing overall cost); and
transmitting information on the first route to the navigation terminal (Figure 2 “displaying the route on the map”),
wherein
the drawing gesture is formed by free movement of a touch point on a touch display of the navigation terminal that is displaying a map (Figure 4 and Abstract; see also Figure 1 “Touch screen”), and
the free movement is movement of a touch point that is not limited to a road included in the map (Figures 3-4, for example, show that the drawn routes do not need to perfectly match the roads and therefore are not limited to exact road tracing; see also ¶ 0011-0013 wherein drawn routes not being interpreted when not falling on stored streets is a problem the invention wishes to solve).
Regarding claim 11,
Nagy teaches
A method for displaying a route of a navigation device (Figure 1 “Touch screen”) by using a drawing gesture (Abstract), the method comprising:
receiving a drawing gesture for changing an existing route displayed on a touch display of the navigation device (Figure 6 shows drawing a modified route on a planned route);
determining a change route based on the existing route by using the drawing gesture (see recalculated route of Figure 7); and
displaying information related to the change route (Figure 2 “displaying the route on the map”),
wherein:
the drawing gesture is formed by free movement of a touch point on the touch display of the navigation device that is displaying a map (Figure 6 and Abstract; see also Figure 1 “Touch screen”),
the free movement is free movement of the touch point from a first point of the existing route to a second point different from the first point, and moves a point different from a route between the first point and the second point on the existing route (Figure 6), and
the free movement is movement of a touch point that is not limited to a road included in the map (Figures 3-4, for example, show that the drawn routes do not need to perfectly match the roads and therefore are not limited to exact road tracing; see also ¶ 0011-0013 wherein drawn routes not being interpreted when not falling on stored streets is a problem the invention wishes to solve).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi.
Regarding claim 3, Yamaguchi teaches all of claim 2 as detailed above.
Yamaguchi does not explicitly teach that
determining the first route includes determining the width of the free curve before receiving the drawing gesture.
However, Yamaguchi contemplates a predetermined range (column 3 lines 45-56 “predetermined range”) even if the exact time at which the range is predetermined is not explicitly stated. Therefore, Yamaguchi at least provides a suggestion that the range should be predetermined prior to matching of the predetermined range to points on the line for road link detection. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found that the practice of temporally changing when a predetermined variable is known would require only routine skill in the art and thus it would have been obvious to have the range be predetermined before the method starts with the reasonable expectation of success to reduce computation time at the start of performing the method.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of White et al. US 20120029804 A1 (hereinafter White).
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi teaches all of claim 2 as detailed above.
Yamaguchi does not teach that
determining the first route includes:
identifying a density of the road link within a reference value from the touch point at which the drawing gesture is formed; and
determining the width of the free curve by using the identified density of the road link.
White teaches that
determining the first route includes:
identifying a map zoom level (¶ 0013-0014 discloses generating a route at a zoom level indicating that the zoom level is known); and
determining the width of the free curve by using the identified zoom level (¶ 0019 discloses that a search envelope’s dimensions are dependent upon the current zoom level; see also ¶ 0013 which discloses that a search envelope is an area surrounding a bias route wherein route searching is admissible).
While White does not explicitly disclose identifying a density of road links and modifying the width based on the identified density, the zoom dependent search envelope modification of White would effectively perform the same as the intended invention as claimed. I.e., a search envelope would be changed with the density of displayed road links within an entire displayed map (i.e. the area within a “reference value” from the touch point) as changing a zoom of a map displaying roads is well known to change the density of roads shown on the map. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Yamaguchi to incorporate the teachings of White such that the range of Yamaguchi can be changed according to the map zoom level as taught by White and thus in consequence be changed based on the density of the roads. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce computation time and memory consumption by modifying the search envelope size and searching primarily in relevant areas based on zoom level as taught by Yamaguchi (¶ 0049).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wang et al. US 9576490 B1 (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 5, Yamaguchi teaches all of claim 2 as detailed above.
Yamaguchi further teaches that
determining the first route includes:
receiving a theme for the first route before determining the first route (column 3 lines 64-67 discloses using a predetermined condition for selecting road links).
Yamaguchi does not teach
identifying a theme score indicating suitability according to the theme for each road link; and
selecting the road link by a combination with a highest sum of the theme score.
Wang teaches
receiving a theme for the first route before determining the first route (column 5 lines 55-67 discloses weights for scoring paths are obtained from user input; column 6 lines 46-56 discloses a user may also input a personal preference for consideration for scoring paths)
identifying a theme score indicating suitability according to the theme for each road link (column 5 lines 23-67 disclose that paths, defined as potential sections of a route between two nodes, are scored according to a plurality of categories wherein the categories are weighed according to user preference and a personal preference category is also included for calculation); and
selecting the road link by a combination with a highest sum of the theme score (column 7 lines 35-53 discloses that, for a plurality of routes, scores for paths that make up a route are summed, and the route with the highest total sum is selected as the suggested route).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Yamaguchi to incorporate the teachings of Wang such that the identified road links of Yamaguchi can be analyzed according to the path scoring of Wang wherein a route with the highest total score can be selected as taught by Wang. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve user experience by optimizing the route to user preference.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. US 2018/0356247 A1 (hereinafter Jung).
Regarding claim 6, Yamaguchi teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Yamaguchi does not teach that
determining the first route includes:
receiving a first drawing gesture for determining the destination;
receiving a second drawing gesture for determining a shape of the first route from the departure point to the destination;
determining the first route in a first area formed by the first drawing gesture; and
determining the first route outside the first area based on a free curve formed by the second drawing gesture.
Jung teaches that
determining the first route includes:
receiving a first drawing gesture for determining the destination (Figures 8A-8E; see also ¶ 0221-0222 for example which details that when a location is circled by a user’s touch input, it is understood as a selected location; see also Figure 6 for example where the same method is used for a destination or a waypoint);
receiving a second drawing gesture for determining a shape of the first route from the departure point to the destination (Figure 9; see also ¶ 0232-0233, for example, which disclose that a user drawn route is received and displayed);
determining the first route in a first area formed by the first drawing gesture (¶ 0221-0222 discloses that the destination of the route is selected based on the user’s input); and
determining the first route outside the first area based on a free curve formed by the second drawing gesture (¶ 0235 discloses route guidance is generated along the drawn line).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Yamaguchi to incorporate the teachings of Jung such that a destination can be encircled and utilized in the path planning of Yamaguchi according to the teachings of Jung. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a user with a fast search for deriving a desired destination without interference with the user’s driving as disclosed in Jung (¶ 0005).
Regarding claim 7, Yamaguchi teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Yamaguchi does not teach that
determining the first route includes:
receiving a first drawing gesture for determining a waypoint;
receiving a second drawing gesture for determining a shape of the first route from the departure point to the destination; and
determining the first route based on a free curve formed by the second drawing gesture,
wherein the first route includes the waypoint determined by the first drawing gesture.
Jung teaches that
determining the first route includes:
receiving a first drawing gesture for determining a waypoint (Figure 8A-8E; see also ¶ 0221-0222 for example which details that when a location is circled by a user’s touch input, it is understood as a selected location; see also Figure 6 for example where the same method is used for a destination or a waypoint);
receiving a second drawing gesture for determining a shape of the first route from the departure point to the destination (Figure 9; see also ¶ 0232-0233 for example which disclose that a user drawn route is received and displayed); and
determining the first route based on a free curve formed by the second drawing gesture (¶ 0235 discloses route guidance is generated along the drawn line),
wherein the first route includes the waypoint determined by the first drawing gesture (¶ 0010 discloses that the generated route includes the selected destination and waypoint).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Yamaguchi to incorporate the teachings of Jung such that a waypoint can be encircled and utilized in the path planning of Yamaguchi according to the teachings of Jung. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a user with a fast search for deriving a desired waypoint to include in route searching without interference with the user’s driving as disclosed in Jung (¶ 0005).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagy.
Regarding claim 8, Yamaguchi teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Yamaguchi does not teach that
determining the first route includes:
receiving a first drawing gesture for determining the first route from the departure point to the destination;
receiving a second drawing gesture for modifying the first route;
generating a free curve on the map based on the first drawing gesture and the second drawing gesture; and
determining the first route based on the free curve.
Nagy teaches that
determining the first route includes:
receiving a first drawing gesture for determining the first route from the departure point to the destination (Figure 4 shows drawing an initial route);
receiving a second drawing gesture for modifying the first route (Figure 6 shows drawing a modified route section);
generating a free curve on the map based on the first drawing gesture and the second drawing gesture (Figure 5 shows the route is initially calculated based on the first drawing and Figure 7 shows that the route is recalculated based on the initially calculated route and the modified drawing); and
determining the first route based on the free curve (aforementioned Figures 5 and 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Yamaguchi to incorporate the teachings of Nagy such that a user may modify their originally drawn route as taught by Nagy. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve user satisfaction with the route as suggested by Nagy (¶ 0056).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Couleaud et al. US 20240426621 A1 (hereinafter Couleaud).
Regarding claim 9, Yamaguchi teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Yamaguchi does not teach that
displaying information on the first route includes displaying information on a second route from the departure point to the destination together with the first route, wherein the second route is determined independently from the drawing gesture.
Couleaud teaches that
displaying information on the first route includes displaying information on a second route from the departure point to the destination together with the first route (¶ 0061 discloses that if multiple target routes are found to satisfy qualifiers and constraints, the user may be prompted for confirmation of a route; see also ¶ 0085 which explicitly states that a plurality of candidate routes may be presented to a user for confirmation), wherein the second route is determined independently from the drawing gesture (¶ 0060 discloses another separate route can be determined from a location to a destination that better matches a desired route and the other route can be suggested to a user).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Yamaguchi to incorporate the teachings of Couleaud such that a separately generated route can be determined, and confirmation of a desired route can be requested from a user as detailed in Couleaud. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve user experience.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Glaser et al. US 20140229101 A1 discloses that a user can draw a freeform curve on a map wherein a route is generated based on the drawing. The user may also modify the map by drawing additional detours.
Golding et al. US 7512487 B1 discloses scoring potential routes based on desirability based on user preference.
Matsuoka et al. US 20060276959 A1 discloses changing a map display zoom based on a density of road links on a displayed map to improve route traceability.
Ortiz et al. US 20260029243 A1 discloses scoring a plurality of routes and selecting a route based on the scores.
"The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass Episode 3: The Ember Island Player" by chuggaaconroy shows gameplay of the Nintendo DS game Phantom Hourglass wherein the user can use the touchscreen of the Nintendo DS to draw routes on a displayed map and change routes as desired wherein the player’s ship will follow the drawn route exactly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights