Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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) 1-7, 9-11 and 13-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2022/0074754 by Elder.
Regarding claim 1, Elder discloses a map display control method (abstract), comprising increasing a first scale of a first-level map in response to a map enlargement instruction for the first-level map (para. 19 – see changing zoom), and displaying the first-level map according to the first scale (fig. 4A; para. 19, 37-40 – see the first zoom level of the map); and determining a target position in the first-level map according to the map enlargement instruction in response to the first scale being greater than or equal to a first threshold, and displaying a second-level map corresponding to the target position (para. 19, 41; fig. 4B-4C – see the second zoom level being displayed according to the set threshold).
Regarding claim 2, Elder discloses the map display control method according to claim 1, wherein the first-level map is a map corresponding to a first region, the second-level map is a map corresponding to a second region, the first region comprises the second region, and the second region comprises the target position (fig. 4A-4C; para. 19, 37-41 – see the zoom level of the map including the first region).
Regarding claim 3, Elder discloses the map display control method according to claim 1, wherein displaying the second-level map corresponding to the target position comprises: displaying the second-level map corresponding to the target position in a second initial scale (fig. 4A-4C; para. 19, 37-41 – see the displayed second level map).
Regarding claim 4, Elder discloses the map display control method according to claim 3, wherein the second initial scale is greater than or equal to a maximum scale of the first-level map (fig. 4A-4C; para. 19, 37-41 – see the increased scale of the map).
Regarding claim 5, Elder discloses the map display control method according to claim 1, wherein the target position is a focus position of the map enlargement instruction (fig. 4A-4C; para. 19, 37-41 – see the enlargement of the map).
Regarding claim 6, Elder discloses the map display control method according to claim 1, wherein the first-level map and the second-level map are two preset maps (fig. 4A-4C; para. 19, 37-41 – see the preset threshold. Examiner noting that the term “preset” is being read broadly and what feature of the map is preset is not detailed by the claim).
Regarding claim 7, Elder discloses the map display control method according to claim1, further comprising: reducing a second scale of the second-level map in response to a map reduction instruction for the second-level map, and displaying the second-level map according to the second scale; displaying the first-level map in response to the second scale being less than or equal to a second threshold (fig. 4A-4C; para. 19, 37-41 – see zooming back into the original map).
Regarding claim 9, Elder discloses the map display control method according to claim 7, wherein displaying the first-level map comprises: displaying the first-level map in a first initial scale (fig. 4A-4C; para. 19, 37-41 – see the scale of the map).
Regarding claim 10, Elder discloses the map display control method according to claim 9, wherein the first initial scale is less than or equal to a minimum scale of the second-level map (fig. 4A-4C; para. 19, 37-41 – see the scale difference of the maps).
Regarding claims 11 and 13-21, these claims are rejected as noted above regarding claims 1-7 and 9-10, mutatis mutandis.
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, 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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elder.
Regarding claim 8, Elder discloses the map display control method according to claim 7 and user instructions to change the zoom of a map at para. 19. However, Elder does not explicitly disclose wherein the map enlargement instruction is a two-finger open operation acting on the first-level map, and the map reduction instruction is a two-finger pinch operation acting on the second-level map. Examiner is taking official notice of the use of two finger pinch and zoom operations within a computing environment. This type of operation is completely ubiquitous and numerous references could be found that would indicate the use of two finger pinch and zoom operation to navigate a map. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would motivated to use two finger pinch to zoom operations in Elder because the use of such navigation inputs is extremely common as of the effective filing date of 2021 and would be a naturally understood way for users to navigate a map. This natural language of navigation is shared by many users and to use such a technique would allow Elder to conform with the standard that most people know.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER J IANNUZZI whose telephone number is (571)272-5793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/PETER J IANNUZZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715