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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 62-67, 69-77, 79-83 filed 04/03/2026 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect amended claims 62, 69, 71, 76, 80 filed on 04/03/2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
However, examiner found some amended limitations are taught by references previous introduced.
In Remark page 10, second paragraph, applicant argued that the Office has not shown that Piemonte discusses "determining an overlay surface texture corresponding to the overlay using a hardware-accelerated framework of the user device,… a hardware-accelerated framework of the user device" as claim 62 recites.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. In fact, in Fig. 13, [0089], Byrod discloses “user device 102 may stretch (e.g., add pixels, multiply pixels, duplicate pixels, etc.) texture images to cover expanded surfaces of the transformed three-dimensional model when the transformation of the three-dimensional model adds surface area to surfaces 1208 and/or 1210” and Fig. 15, [0115] “the transformed images can be generated based on the frame rate of user device 102, user device 102 may have a frame rate of 120 frames per second. If it takes one second to move the virtual device from location 1502 to location 1510 , then user device 102 will generate 120 transformed images representing the change in perspective of the virtual device in relation to objects 1504 and 1506 ” Byrod teaches determining and overlay surface texture to the overlay (e.g., texture images to cover expanded surfaces of the transformed 3D model to surfaces 1208, 1210, Fig. 13) using a hardware-accelerated framework of the user device (e.g., user device 120 has a frame rate of 120 frame per second, will generate 120 transformed images (add texture images) representing the change in perspective of the virtual device in relation to objects, Fig. 15);
Furthermore, in paragraph [0004], Byrod discloses “The dynamic street scene overlay can be presented such that a user can clearly view both the dynamic street scene and the map view… and interacting with the map view” and [0049] “overlay 302 can include graphical object 308 for transitioning between partial screen and full screen versions of overlay 302. For example, when in partial screen view, as illustrated by FIG. 3, receiving user input selecting graphical object 308 can cause navigation application 104 to present a full screen version of overlay 302” and Fig. 13, [0089] “user device 102 may stretch (e.g., add pixels, multiply pixels, duplicate pixels, etc.) texture images to cover expanded surfaces of the transformed three-dimensional model when the transformation of the three-dimensional model adds surface area to surfaces 1208 and/or 1210” Byrod teaches changing the map view version (e.g., transitioning between partial screen and full screen version of overlay 302) by at least flexing map view (referred to as a dynamic map view or interacting map view) to include the overlay surface texture (e.g., the texture covers expanded surfaces areas 1208, 1210, Fig. 13) based on the overlay properties (receiving user input selecting graphical object (interacting) to transition to a full screen version of overlay 302).
Byrod also discloses in Fig. 13, [0089] “user device 102 may stretch (e.g., add pixels, multiply pixels, duplicate pixels, etc.) texture images to cover expanded surfaces of the transformed three-dimensional model when the transformation of the three-dimensional model adds surface area to surfaces 1208 and/or 1210” and Fig. 15, [0115] “the transformed images can be generated based on the frame rate of user device 102, user device 102 may have a frame rate of 120 frames per second. If it takes one second to move the virtual device from location 1502 to location 1510 , then user device 102 will generate 120 transformed images representing the change in perspective of the virtual device in relation to objects 1504 and 1506 ” Byrod teaches rendering, on the display of the user device 120, using the hardware accelerated framework, (device 120 has frame rate of 120 frames per second to generate 120 transformed images), the second version including the overlay surface texture (version 1304, Fig. 13).
Independent claims 76 and 80 have been amended similarly to claim 62 and are rejected as the explanation above.
Dependent claims 63-67, 69-75, 77, 79, and 81-83 depend on independent claims 62, 76 and 80 and rejected as current rejection.
The rejection of claims 69, 71 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment on claims 69, 71.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 62-63, 69, 72-74, 76, 79-80, 83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Piemonte et al. (U.S. 2013/0328862 A1) in view of Berk et al. (U.S. 2020/0264735 A1) and further in view of Byrod et al. (U.S. 2020/0380783 A1).
Regarding Claim 1-61, (Cancelled).
Regarding Claim 62 (Currently amended), Piemonte discloses a computer-implemented method (Piemonte, [0004] “a novel method”), comprising:
determining a first version of a map view to render on a display of a user device based at least in part on map configuration data (Piemonte, Fig. 1, [0023] “the mapping application 110 generates views of a 3D map for display on a device on which the mapping application 110 is operating, the 3D map 105 includes two buildings and two roads that form a T-junction” and [0024] “The virtual camera 100 is a conceptualization of the position in the 3D map 105 from which the mapping application 110 renders the 3D map view 150, the virtual camera 100 sends the mapping application 110 a field of view 140 (e.g., a viewing frustum) of the 3D map 105” Piemonte teaches determining a first version of a map view (e.g., a viewing frustum) to render on a display of a user device based on part on map configuration data (the 3D map 105 includes two buildings and two roads that form a T-junction), wherein the map view comprises at least one map tile (Piemonte, [0027] “the mapping application 110 generates geospatial map tiles 160 to substitute for the unavailable map tiles 135 and then renders the map view 150 for display on the device” [0028] “FIG. 1, the sections of the 3D map 105 that correspond to the unavailable map tiles 135 are filled in by the geospatial map tiles 160” Piemonte teaches the map view 150 include a map tile 160;
receiving overlay data for rendering an overlay on the map view (Piemonte, Fig. 1, [0027] When the mapping application 110 receives the set of map tiles 130 from the map tile provider 120, the mapping application 110 renders the 3D map view 150” Piemonte teaches receiving overlay data (the set of map tiles 130) for rendering an overlay on the 3D map view 150, wherein the overlay data are distinct from the map tile (Piemonte, [0028] “As shown in FIG. 1, the sections of the 3D map 105 that correspond to the unavailable map tiles 135 130 are filled in by the geospatial map tiles 160, the geospatial map tiles 160 include geospatial information to allow a user to visually determine distances in the 3D map view 150 in an easy and informative manner” Piemonte teaches the overlay data, the geospatial map tiles 160, are distinct (different) from the set of map tiles 130.
determining, from the overlay data, one or more overlay properties (Piemonte, [0027] “the mapping application 110 generates geospatial map tiles 160 to substitute for the unavailable map tiles 135 and then renders the map view 150 for display on the device” and [0028] “As shown in FIG. 1, the sections of the 3D map 105 that correspond to the unavailable map tiles 135 are filled in by the geospatial map tiles 160, the geospatial map tiles 160 include geospatial information to allow a user to visually determine distances in the 3D map view 150 in an easy and informative manner” Piemonte teaches determining, from overlay data (e.g., the unavailable map tiles 135 are filled in (referred to as are overlaid) by the geospatial map tiles 160 on the map view 150, Fig. 1), one or more overlay properties (the geospatial map tiles 160 provides geospatial information as overlay properties to allow a user to visually determine distances in the 3D map view 150 in an easy and informative manner);
rendering, on the display of the user device, the second version of the map view, the second version including the overlay (Piemonte, Fig. 2, [0034] “the GUI 200 includes several user interface (UI) controls and a two-dimensional (2D) view 220 of a 3D map (also referred to as an orthographic view or a top-down view). The 2D view 220 shows several streets running along a horizontal or perpendicular direction” and [0035] “The second stage 210 illustrates a user providing input (e.g., a swipe gesture) to pan the 2D view 220 of the 3D maps” Piemonte teaches rendering, on the display of the user device, a second version of the map view (2D view 220, referred to as an orthographic view or a top-down view), the second version including overlay (the second stage 210 providing the overlaid input, a swipe gesture).
However, Piemonte does not explicitly teach
determining an overlay surf ace texture corresponding to the overlay using a hardware-accelerated framework of the user device;
changing the map view from the first version to a second version by at least flexing the map view to include the overlay surface texture based at least in part on the one or more overlay properties;
rendering, on the display of the user device and using the hardware-accelerated framework, the second version of the map view, the second version including the overlay surface texture.
Berk teaches changing the map view from the first version to a second version based on the one or more overlay properties (Berk, [0030] “FIG. 3. The first stage 302 shows a traditional 3D navigation presentation showing a representation 322 of the device navigating along a represented route 324, shows the user selecting the declutter control 250” and [0031] “The second stage 304 shows that the application displays a decluttered navigation presentation 375 in response to this selection…the decluttered navigation presentation 275 in that it does not display the representation 324 of the navigated route nor does it display representations of buildings in the displayed navigation scene” Berk teaches changing the map view from the first version (3D map view) to a second version (2D map view) based on one or more overlay properties (stage 306, 308, Fig. 3).
Piemonte and Berk are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, system and method for image processing and try to solve similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made for modifying the method of Piemonte to combine with changing the map view from the first version to a second version (as taught by Berk) in order to change the map view from the first version to a second version based on the one or more overlay properties because Berk can provide changing the map view from the first version (3D map view) to a second version (2D map view) based on one or more overlay properties (stage 306, 308, Fig. 3) (Berk, Fig. 3, [0030], [0031]). Doing so, it may provide both presentations can change freely between 2D and 3D views of the navigated scene (Berk, [0003]).
Byrod teaches determining an overlay surface texture corresponding to the overlay using a hardware-accelerated framework of the user device (Byrod, Fig. 13, [0089] “user device 102 may stretch (e.g., add pixels, multiply pixels, duplicate pixels, etc.) texture images to cover expanded surfaces of the transformed three-dimensional model when the transformation of the three-dimensional model adds surface area to surfaces 1208 and/or 1210” and Fig. 15, [0115] “the transformed images can be generated based on the frame rate of user device 102, user device 102 may have a frame rate of 120 frames per second. If it takes one second to move the virtual device from location 1502 to location 1510 , then user device 102 will generate 120 transformed images representing the change in perspective of the virtual device in relation to objects 1504 and 1506 ” Byrod teaches determining and overlay surface texture to the overlay (e.g., texture images to cover expanded surfaces of the transformed 3D model to surfaces 1208, 1210, Fig. 13) using a hardware-accelerated framework of the user device (e.g., user device 120 has a frame rate of 120 frame per second, will generate 120 transformed images (add texture images) representing the change in perspective of the virtual device in relation to objects, Fig. 15);
changing the map view version by at least flexing the map view to include the overlay surface texture based at least in part on the one or more overlay properties (Byrod, [0004] “The dynamic street scene overlay can be presented such that a user can clearly view both the dynamic street scene and the map view… and interacting with the map view” and [0049] “overlay 302 can include graphical object 308 for transitioning between partial screen and full screen versions of overlay 302. For example, when in partial screen view, as illustrated by FIG. 3, receiving user input selecting graphical object 308 can cause navigation application 104 to present a full screen version of overlay 302” and Fig. 13, [0089] “user device 102 may stretch (e.g., add pixels, multiply pixels, duplicate pixels, etc.) texture images to cover expanded surfaces of the transformed three-dimensional model when the transformation of the three-dimensional model adds surface area to surfaces 1208 and/or 1210” Byrod teaches changing the map view version (e.g., transitioning between partial screen and full screen version of overlay 302) by at least flexing map view (referred to as a dynamic map view or interacting map view) to include the overlay surface texture (e.g., the texture covers expanded surfaces areas 1208, 1210, Fig. 13) based on the overlay properties (receiving user input selecting graphical object (interacting) to transition to a full screen version of overlay 302).
rendering, on the display of the user device and using the hardware-accelerated framework, the second version of the map view, the second version including the overlay surface texture (Byrod, Fig. 13, [0089] “user device 102 may stretch (e.g., add pixels, multiply pixels, duplicate pixels, etc.) texture images to cover expanded surfaces of the transformed three-dimensional model when the transformation of the three-dimensional model adds surface area to surface 1208 and/or
1210” and Fig. 15, [0115] “the transformed images can be generated based on the frame rate of user device 102, user device 102 may have a frame rate of 120 frames per second. If it takes one second to move the virtual device from location 1502 to location 1510 , then user device 102 will generate 120 transformed images representing the change in perspective of the virtual device in relation to objects 1504 and 1506 ” Byrod teaches rendering, on the display of the user device 120, using the hardware accelerated framework, (device 120 has frame rate of 120 frames per second to generate 120 transformed images), the second version including the overlay surface texture (version 1304, Fig. 13).
Piemonte, Berk and Byrod are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, system and method for image processing and try to solve similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made for modifying the method of Piemonte to combine with a flexing map view (as taught by Byrod) in order to change the map view version by a flexing the map view based on the overlay properties because Byrod can provide changing the map view version (e.g., transitioning between partial screen and full screen versions of overlay 302) by at least flexing map view (referred to as a dynamic map view or interacting map view) based on the overlay properties (receiving user input selecting graphical object (interacting) to transition to a full screen version of overlay 302) (Byrod, [0004], [0049]). Doing so, it may provide the generated imagery may have a three-dimensional look and feel even though generated from a single two-dimensional image (Byrod, [0006]).
Regarding Claim 63, a combination of Piemonte, Berk and Byrod discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 62, wherein the first version of the map view comprises a three-dimensional map (Piemonte, Fig. 1, [0023] “the mapping application 110 generates views of a 3D map for display on a device on which the mapping application 110 is operating and [0024] “the virtual camera 100 sends the mapping application 110 a field of view 140 (e.g., a viewing frustum) of the 3D map 105” Piemonte teaches the first version of the map view (e.g. a viewing frustum) includes a 3D map and the second version comprises a two- dimensional map (Piemonte, Fig. 2, [0034] “the GUI 200 includes several user interface (UI) controls and a two-dimensional (2D) view 220 of a 3D map (also referred to as an orthographic view or a top-down view)” Piemonte teaches the first version of the map view (e.g. an orthographic view) includes a 2D map.
Regarding Claim 68 (Canceled).
Regarding Claim 69 (Currently amended), the computer-implemented method of claim [[68]] 62, Piemonte does not explicitly teach wherein the overlay properties define a two-dimensional feature, and wherein changing the map view from the first version to the second version comprises adding the two-dimensional feature to the map view to present the two-dimensional feature in a three-dimensional map environment.
However, Berk teaches the overlay properties define a two-dimensional feature, and wherein changing the map view from the first version to the second version comprises adding the two-dimensional feature to the map view to present the two-dimensional feature in a three-dimensional map environment (Berk, [0030] “FIG. 3. The first stage 302 shows a traditional 3D navigation presentation showing a representation 322 of the device navigating along a represented route 324, shows the user selecting the declutter control 250” and [0032] “The third stage 306 shows that in place of the navigated-route representation, the decluttered navigation presentation displays traffic indication markers 342 along the road 326” Berk teaches changing the map view from the first version (3D map view) to a second version (2D map view) includes adding the 2D feature (traffic indication markers 342 on 2D map view, stage 306 Fig. 3) in 3D map environment (stage 302).
Piemonte, Berk and Byrod are combinable see rationale in claim 62.
Regarding Claim 72, a combination of Piemonte, Berk and Byrod discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 62, wherein overlay comprises one or more annotations, and wherein rendering the second version of the map view comprises rendering the one or more annotations in the map view (Piemonte, [0052] the mapping application in this example renders each of the geospatial map tile 525 with a bolding of the border and a 3D callout pointer at or near the center of the map tile. The 3D callout pointer indicates the distance (75 feet in this example) to the nearest available map tile in the 3D perspective view 520” Piemonte teaches rendering in the map view includes one or more annotation in the map view e.g., a 2D callout pointer indicates the distance 75 feet.
Regarding Claim 73, the computer-implemented method of claim 62, Piemonte does not explicitly teach wherein the overlay comprises a two-dimensional feature and the map view comprises a three-dimensional map, wherein changing the map view from the first version to the second version comprises projecting the two-dimensional feature onto the three-dimensional map.
However, Berk teaches a two-dimensional feature and the map view comprises a three-dimensional map, changing the map view from the first version to the second version comprises projecting the two-dimensional feature onto the three-dimensional map(Berk, [0030] “FIG. 3. The first stage 302 shows a traditional 3D navigation presentation showing a representation 322 of the device navigating along a represented route 324, shows the user selecting the declutter control 250” and [0032] “The third stage 306 shows that in place of the navigated-route representation, the decluttered navigation presentation displays traffic indication markers 342 along the road 326” Berk teaches changing the map view from the first version (3D map view) to a second version (2D map view) includes projecting (representing) the 2D feature (traffic indication markers 342 on 2D map view, stage 306 Fig. 3) in 3D map environment (stage 302).
Piemonte, Berk and Byrod are combinable see rationale in claim 62.
Regarding Claim 74, the computer-implemented method of claim 62, Piemonte does not explicitly teach wherein changing the map view from the first version to the second version based on the one or more overlay properties comprises changing an entirety of the map view; or removing or adding one or more three-dimensional features based at least in part on the one or more overlay properties.
However, Berk teaches changing the map view from the first version to the second version based on the one or more overlay properties comprises changing an entirety of the map view (Berk, [0030] “FIG. 3. The first stage 302 shows a traditional 3D navigation presentation showing a representation 322 of the device navigating along a represented route 324, shows the user selecting the declutter control 250” and [0031] The second stage 304 shows that the application displays a decluttered navigation presentation 375 in response to this selection…the decluttered navigation presentation 275 in that it does not display the representation 324 of the navigated route nor does it display representations of buildings in the displayed navigation scene. Instead, the decluttered presentation 375 has a more pronounced representation of the roads 326 traversed by the navigated route” Berk teaches changing the map view from the first version (3D map view) to a second version (2D map view) includes changing an entirety of the map view (it does not display the representation 324 of the navigated route nor does it display representations of buildings in the displayed navigation scene, it displays the roads 326 traversed by the navigated route (stage 304, Fig. 3).
Piemonte, Berk and Byrod are combinable see rationale in claim 62.
Regarding Claim 76 (Currently amended), a combination of Piemonte, Berk and Byrod discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (Piemonte, [0093] “a set of instructions recorded on a computer readable storage medium. When these instructions are executed by one or more processors” comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computer system cause the computer system to perform operations, comprising:
determining a first version of a map view to render on a display of a user device based at least in part on map configuration data, wherein the map view comprises at least one map tile;
receiving overlay data for rendering an overlay on the map view, wherein the overlay data are distinct from the at least one map tile;
determining, from the overlay data, one or more overlay properties;
determining an overlay surface texture corresponding to the overlay using a hardware-accelerated framework of the user device;
changing the map view from the first version to a second version based at least in part on the one or more overlay properties, wherein the second version includes the overlay surface texture; and
rendering, on the display of the user device and using the hardware-accelerated framework, a second version of the map view, the second version including the overlay surface texture.
Claim 76 is substantially similar to claim 62 is rejected based on similar analyses.
Regarding Claim 78 (Canceled).
Regarding Claim 79, the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 77, Piemonte does not explicitly teach wherein changing the portion of the map view comprises changing the portion of the map view that intersects with the overlay without changing other portions of the map view that do not intersect with the overlay.
However, Berk teaches changing the portion of the map view that intersects with the overlay without changing other portions of the map view that do not intersect with the overlay (Berk, [0039] “FIG. 5 illustrates an example of such an appByrod. This app is illustrated in terms of three operational stages 502-506” and [0040] In the decluttered navigation presentation 577, the navigation application removes the representation of the navigated route 570, and in its places inserts an arrow at the juncture for an upcoming maneuver along the route” Berk teaches changing the portion of the map view that intersects with the overlay e.g., removes the navigated route 570 and overlay an arrow at the juncture along the route without changing other portions of the map view that do not intersect with the arrow (stage 504, Fig. 5).
Piemonte, Berk and Byrod are combinable see rationale in claim 62.
Regarding Claim 80 (Currently amended), a combination of Piemonte, Berk and Byrod discloses a device (Piemonte, [0023] “a device”), comprising:
a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions (Piemonte, [0105] “a non-volatile memory unit that stores instructions and data”); and
a processor (Piemonte, [0110] “multi-core processors that execute software”) configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to at least:
determining a first version of a map view to render on a display of a user device based at least in part on map configuration data, wherein the map view comprises at least one map tile;
receiving overlay data for rendering an overlay on the map view, wherein the overlay data are distinct from the at least one map tile;
determine, from the overlay data, one or more overlay properties;
determining an overlay surface texture corresponding to the overlay using a hardware-accelerated framework of the user device;
changing the map view from the first version to a second version based at least in part on the one or more overlay properties, wherein the second version includes the overlay surface texture; and
rendering, on the display of the user device and using the hardware-accelerated framework, a second version of the map view, the second version including the overlay surface texture.
Claim 80 is substantially similar to claim 62 is rejected based on similar analyses.
Regarding Claim 83, the computer-implemented method of claim 62, a combination of Piemonte, Berk does not explicitly teach wherein flexing the map view comprises increasing features and detail of the map view or decreasing the features and detail of the map view.
However, Byrod teaches flexing the map view comprises increasing features and detail of the map view (Byrod, [0068] “FIG. 8 illustrates an example graphical user interface 800 for presenting a maximized view of a placecard simultaneously with a dynamic street scene overlay. Because the large display allows more area for presenting content, navigation application 104 may present a maximized view of placecard 502 and dynamic street scene overlay 302 while still presenting enough of the map in map view 202” Byrod teaches flexing the map view include increasing feature and detail (a maximized view of placecard 502 and detail hours, address, overlay of the map view 202, Fig. 8) or decreasing the features and detail of the map view.
Piemonte, Berk and Byrod are combinable see rationale in claim 62.
Claims 64, 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Piemonte et al. (U.S. 2013/0328862 A1) in view of Berk et al. (U.S. 2020/0264735 A1) and further in view of Byrod et al. (U.S. 2020/0380783A1) and further in view of Hesteman et al. (U.S. 2018/0322197 A1).
Regarding Claim 64, the computer-implemented method of claim 62, a combination of Piemonte, Berk and Byrod does not explicitly teach wherein receiving the overlay data comprises receiving the overlay data from a third-party source or from a mapping service.
However, Hesteman teaches receiving the overlay data comprises receiving the overlay data from a third-party source (Hesteman, [0054] Referring to FIG. 3(A), on the right side, a satellite view of terrain in a particular geographic location is presented with a polyline path 301 superimposed” and [0063] “In other embodiments, the third-party event data may be superimposed onto a map with polyline paths corresponding to recorded video” and [0091] “The geometric data may include polylines. These data sets may be sourced by a service provided by a third party”. Hesteman teaches receiving the overlay data (e.g., polyline paths) from a third-party source to overlay on a 3D map view (Fig. 3A).
Piemonte, Berk, Byrod and Hesterman are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, system and method for image processing and try to solve similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made for modifying the method of Piemonte to combine with a third party source (as taught by Hesterman) in order to receive the overlay data from a third-party source because Hesterman can provide receiving the overlay data (e.g., polyline paths) from a third-party source to overlay on a 3D map view (Fig. 3A) (Hesterman, Fig. 3A, [0054], [0063], [0091]). Doing so, this can help users who are communicating to know what the other is talking about or looking at (Hesterman, [0032]).
Regarding Claim 65, a combination of Piemonte, Berk, Byrod discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 64, wherein the overlay properties define a two-dimensional feature (Piemonte, Fig. 2, [0034] “the GUI 200 includes several user interface (UI) controls and a two-dimensional (2D) view 220 of a 3D map” and [0035] “The second stage 210 illustrates a user providing input (e.g., a swipe gesture) to pan the 2D view 220 of the 3D map” Piemonte teaches the overlay properties define a two-dimensional feature e.g., the input of a swipe gesture to pan the 2D view 220, Fig. 2, stage 210; and
However, a combination of Piemonte, Byrod, Hesterman does not explicitly teach changing the map view from the first version to the second version comprises changing the map view from an enhanced state to a diminished state that presents the two-dimensional feature in a two-dimensional map;
Berk teaches changing the map view from the first version to the second version comprises changing the map view from an enhanced state to a diminished state that presents the two-dimensional feature in a two-dimensional map (Berk, [0030] “FIG. 3. The first stage 302 shows a traditional 3D navigation presentation showing a representation 322 of the device navigating along a represented route 324, shows the user selecting the declutter control 250” and [0031] “The second stage 304 shows that the application displays a decluttered navigation presentation 375 in response to this selection…the decluttered navigation presentation 275 in that it does not display the representation 324 of the navigated route nor does it display representations of buildings in the displayed navigation scene” Berk teaches changing the map view from the first version (3D map view) to a second version (2D map view) includes changing the map view from an enhanced state, a first stage 302, 3D map view to a diminished state, a second stage 304, presents the 2D feature in a 2D map view by selecting the declutter control 250, Fig. 3.
Piemonte, Berk Byrod and Hesteman are combinable see rationale in claim 64.
Claim 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Piemonte et al. (U.S. 2013/0328862 A1) in view of Berk et al. (U.S. 2020/0264735 A1) and further in view of Byrod et al. (U.S. 2020/0380783A1) and further in view of Hesteman et al. (U.S. 2018/0322197 A1) and further in view of Chawathe et al. (U.S. 2015/0170387 A1).
Regarding Claim 66, the computer-implemented method of claim 65, a combination of Piemonte, Berk, Byrod and Hesteman does not explicitly teach wherein the two- dimensional feature comprises a two-dimensional polyline, and the overlay data further comprises a set of navigation instructions corresponding to the two-dimensional polyline.
However, Chawathe teaches the two- dimensional feature comprises a two-dimensional polyline, and the overlay data further comprises a set of navigation instructions corresponding to the two-dimensional polyline (Chawathe, [0018] “FIG. 1. A bulk tile renderer 104 retrieves features from a map feature database 106 and processes the features to render the map tiles. Features may include, for example, a polyline that describes a road or a boundary of a geographical feature, such as a body of water” and Fig. 2, [0045] “The line segments 256a-b represent updates to a feature, such as a road, in geospatial information that describes the map. The user inputs may also include other information about the feature, such as the type of road, the name of the road, and directions of traffic flow on the road” Chawathe teaches a 2D feature includes a 2D polyline that describes a road e.g., the line segments 256a-b represent a road (Fig. 2) and direction of traffic flow on the road as a set of navigation instructions.
Piemonte, Berk, Byrod, Hesterman and Chawathe are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, system and method for image processing and try to solve similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made for modifying the method of Piemonte to combine with a polyline (as taught by Chawathe) in order to include a polyline with a set of navigation instruction because Chawathe can provide a 2D feature includes a 2D polyline that describes a road e.g., the line segments 256a-b represent a road (Fig. 2) and direction of traffic flow on the road as a set of navigation instructions (Chawathe, Fig. 1, [0018], Fig. 2, [0045]). Doing so, it may provide a terrain or topological tile combined with a road overlay tile. The transparent background allows each terrain tile to show through a corresponding overlay road tile (Chawathe, [0037]).
Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Piemonte et al. (U.S. 2013/0328862 A1) in view of Berk et al. (U.S. 2020/0264735 A1) and further in view of Byrod et al. (U.S. 2020/0380783A1) and further in view of Hesteman et al. (U.S. 2018/0322197 A1) and further in view of Moore et al. (U.S. 2017/0371512 A1).
Regarding Claim 67, the computer-implemented method of claim 64, a combination of Piemonte, Berk, Byrod, Hesterman does not explicitly teach wherein the overlay properties define a three-dimensional feature, and wherein changing the map view from the first version to the second version comprises changing the map view from a diminished state to an enhanced state displays the three-dimensional feature in a three-dimensional map environment.
However, Moore teaches the overlay properties define a three-dimensional feature, and wherein changing the map view from the first version to the second version comprises changing the map view from a diminished state to an enhanced state displays the three-dimensional feature in a three-dimensional map environment (Moore, Fig. 20, [0177] “In stage 2005, the compass control 2020 is illustrated upright, flat on the map to indicate that the mapping application is in a 2D mode. In this stage, the mapping application is also receiving a user selection of a 3D button 2025 to switch from the current 2D mode of the map to a 3D mode of the map” and [0178] “Stage 2010 illustrates that the mapping application has entered a 3D mode, with the buildings illustrated on the map in a 3-dimensions. Furthermore, the compass control 2020 has changed shape to a 3-dimensional object as well” Moore teaches the overlay properties define a three-dimensional feature (the buildings in a 3D) and changing the map view from a diminished state (a state 2005, 2D map view) to an enhanced state (a state 2010, 3D maps view) displays the 3D feature (the buildings in a 3D) in a 3D map environment (Fig. 20, state 2010).
Piemonte, Berk, Byrod, Hesteman and Moore are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, system and method for image processing and try to solve similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made for modifying the method of Piemonte to combine with changing the map view from a diminished state to an enhanced state (as taught by Moore) in order to change the map view from a diminished state to an enhanced state displays the three-dimensional feature in a three-dimensional map environment because Moore can provide changing the map view from a diminished state (a state 2005) to an enhanced state (a state 2010) displays the 3D feature (the buildings in a 3D) in a 3D map environment (Fig. 20, state 2010) (Moore, Fig. 20, [0177], [0178]). Doing so, it may provide a tool for navigating the map and transitioning between a 2D and 3D presentation of the map (Moore, [0044]).
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Piemonte et al. (U.S. 2013/0328862 A1) in view of Berk et al. (U.S. 2020/0264735 A1) and further in view of Byrod et al. (U.S. 2020/0380783A1) and further in view of Chawathe et al. (U.S. 2015/0170387 A1).
Regarding Claim 70, a combination of Piemonte, Berk, Byrod, and Chawathe discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 69, wherein the two- dimensional feature comprises a two-dimensional polyline, and the overlay data further comprises a set of navigation instructions corresponding to the two-dimensional polyline
Claim 70 is substantially similar to claim 66 is rejected based on similar analyses.
Claims 71, 77, 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Piemonte et al. (U.S. 2013/0328862 A1) in view of Berk et al. (U.S. 2020/0264735 A1) and further in view of Byrod et al. (U.S. 2020/0380783A1) and further in view of Moore et al. (U.S. 2017/0371512 A1).
Regarding Claim 71 (Currently amended), the computer-implemented method of claim [[68]] 62, a combination of Piemonte, Berk and Byrod does not explicitly teach wherein the overlay data comprises a three-dimensional feature, and wherein changing the map view from the first version to the second version comprises adding the three-dimensional feature to the map view to present the three-dimensional feature in a three-dimensional map.
However, Moore teaches the overlay data comprises a three-dimensional feature, and wherein changing the map view from the first version to the second version comprises adding the three-dimensional feature to the map view to present the three-dimensional feature in a three-dimensional map Moore, “[0177] In stage 2005, the compass control 2020 is illustrated upright, flat on the map to indicate that the mapping application is in a 2D mode. In this stage, the mapping application is also receiving a user selection of a 3D button 2025 to switch from the current 2D mode of the map to a 3D mode of the map” and [0178] Stage 2010 illustrates that the mapping application has entered a 3D mode, with the buildings illustrated on the map in a 3-dimensions. Furthermore, the compass control 2020 has changed shape to a 3-dimensional object as well” Moore teaches receiving a user selection (a 3D button 2025) for the overlay for presentation in the map view (the 3D buildings overlap on the map view).
Piemonte, Berk, Byrod and Moore are combinable see rationale in claim 67.
Regarding Claim 77, a combination of Piemonte, Berk, Byrod and Moore discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 76, wherein changing the map view from the first version to the second version based on the one or more overlay properties comprises changing a portion of the map view, the one or more overlay properties identifying coordinates of the overlay (Piemonte, [0036] “the 2D view 225 illustrates the top portion of the 2D view 220 that was moved down as a result of the panning operation and a set of geospatial map tiles 230 above the top portion of the 2D view 220” and [0055] “In particular, FIG. 6 conceptually illustrates a single geospatial map tile 600. As shown, the geospatial map tile 600 includes a set of grid lines that represent longitude and latitude coordinates” Piemonte discloses changing a portion of the map view (the top portion of the 2D view 220) based on overlay properties (a set of geospatial map tiles 230) identifying coordinates of the overlay (longitude and latitude coordinates).
Regarding Claim 81, the device of claim 80, a combination of Piemonte, Berk and Byrod does not explicitly teach wherein receiving the overlay data comprises receiving a user selection of the overlay for presentation in the map view
However, Moore teaches receiving the overlay data comprises receiving a user selection of the overlay for presentation in the map view (Moore, “[0177] In stage 2005, the compass control 2020 is illustrated upright, flat on the map to indicate that the mapping application is in a 2D mode. In this stage, the mapping application is also receiving a user selection of a 3D button 2025 to switch from the current 2D mode of the map to a 3D mode of the map” and [0178] Stage 2010 illustrates that the mapping application has entered a 3D mode, with the buildings illustrated on the map in a 3-dimensions. Furthermore, the compass control 2020 has changed shape to a 3-dimensional object as well” Moore teaches receiving a user selection (a 3D button 2025) for the overlay for presentation in the map view (the 3D buildings overlap on the map view).
Piemonte, Berk, Byrod and Moore are combinable see rationale in claim 71.
Claim 75 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Piemonte et al. (U.S. 2013/0328862 A1) in view of Berk et al. (U.S. 2020/0264735 A1) and further in view of Byrod et al. (U.S. 2020/0380783A1) and further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. 2013/0321431 A1).
Regarding Claim 75, the computer-implemented method of claim 62, a combination of Piemonte, Berk and Byrod does not explicitly teach further comprising: removing the overlay from the second version of the map view; and changing the map view from the second version to the first version based at least in part on removing the overlay from the second version.
However, Chen teaches removing the overlay from the second version of the map view; and changing the map view from the second version to the first version based at least in part on removing the overlay from the second version (Chen, [0073] “FIG. 6 illustrates example transitions between map views. The device at 610 displays an aerial map view of a map. The map view displayed in 630 displays an aerial view of a city. Map view 640 displays the same aerial view but rotated to face another direction. The transition animation between 630 and 640 may illustrate rotating around to face the direction of 640” Chen teaches changing the map view from the second version (2D map view, an aerial map view of a map, 610, 620) to a first version (3D map view, an aerial map view of a city 630, 640, Fig. 6) includes removing the overlaid navigation information from the second version (610, 620, Fig. 6).
Piemonte, Berk, Byrod and Chen are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, system and method for image processing and try to solve similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made for modifying the method of Piemonte to combine with a transition from 2D map view to 3D map view (as taught by Chen) in order to change the map view from the second version (2D map view) to the first version (3D map view) based at least in part on removing the overlay from the second version because Chen can provide changing the map view from the second version (2D map view, an aerial map view of a map, 610, 620) to a first version (3D map view, an aerial map view of a city 630, 640, Fig. 6) includes removing the overlaid navigation information from the second version (610, 620, Fig. 6) (Chen, Fig. 6, [0073]). Doing so, it can provide the displayed map view and the selected map view are adjacent to one another (Chen, [0003]).
Claim 82 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Piemonte et al. (U.S. 2013/0328862 A1) in view of Berk et al. (U.S. 2020/0264735 A1) and further in view of Byrod et al. (U.S. 2020/0380783A1) and further in view of Xie et al. (U.S. 2021/0199444 A1).
Regarding Claim 82, the computer-implemented method of claim 62, a combination of Piemonte, Berk and Byrod does not explicitly teach wherein changing the map view from the first version to the second version comprises determining that the first version of the map view is incompatible with the overlay based at least in part on the one or more overlay properties.
However, Xie teaches changing the map view from the first version to the second version comprises determining that the first version of the map view is incompatible with the overlay based at least in part on the one or more overlay properties (Xie, [0070] “FIG. 3D illustrates an example of an areas layer 330 overlaying
the HD map tile 300. The areas layer 330 can include a drivable area 332 and a non-drivable area 334” and Fig. 11, [0098] When it is determined (1102) that there are multiple map tiles that references changes relative to the same base map tile, a conflict exists (1106) and map editing back end services 228 can compare (1106) the diffs between each conflict of the map tile” and [0094] “FIG. 10, in which two conflicting of a map tile exist—tile 1012 has “A” labels, while tile 1014 has “B” labels” and [0103] When conflicts are identified (1108) map editing back end services 228 can prompt (1112) the map labeling user to review the conflicting changes. The map labeling user will either be able to resolve the conflict by relabeling (1114) the conflicting map labels to be relative to the changes made in the previously checked in section of the map” Xie teaches changing the map view from the first version to the second version when determining that the first version is conflicted with overlay properties (e.g., two map tiles label 1012, 1014 are conflict to the base map tile layers for overlaying) and the map editing changes to the second version (map tile labels 1114, Fig. 11) to resolve the conflict layer for overlaying.
Piemonte, Berk, Byrod and Xie are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, system and method for image processing and try to solve similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made for modifying the method of Piemonte to combine with changing the incompatible (conflicting) version of overlaying layer (as taught by Xie) in order to change the incompatible (conflicting) version, first version of overlaying layer to a compatible version, second version because Xie can provide changing the map view from the first version to the second version when determining that the first version is conflicted with overlay properties (e.g., two map tiles label 1012, 1014 are conflict to the base map tile layers for overlaying) and the map editing changes to the second version (map tile labels 1114, Fig. 11) to resolve the conflict layer for overlaying (Xie, [0070], [0094], [0103]). Doing so, it may incorporate the map viewing services for visualizing the effectiveness of various object detection or object classification models (Xie, [0046]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOA VU whose telephone number is (571)272-5994. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00- 4:00.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/KHOA VU/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights