DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/690,596 filed on 09/09/2024.
• Claims 1-5 and 7 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL in response the Remarks filed on 03/18/2026.
• The amendment has overcome the 35 U.S.C.112(f) claim interpretation, 112(b) and 101 rejections.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following: Claim 7 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium but it is dependent on claim 5 which is directed towards a method. Therefore, claim 7 appears to be directed towards two separate (but not distinct) inventions. It is recommended that the claim 7 should be re-write so that it is in independent form and includes all the limitations from claim 5.
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) 1-3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US20120254212A1) in view of Tadman (US20080168369A1), further in view of Wu (US20010016007A1) and Maggiore (US 20220021847 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 7:
Shaw teaches:
A display device that displays items each representing a position of an object with a first time interval as a track of the object on a map, the display device comprising a processor configured to: (Shaw, para[27-28], “a GPS device (e.g., Garmin Forerunner and Edge devices… The user interface may display GPS information and receive selections (e.g., made by a user) with respect to the displays”, and Fig. 2B and para[44], “series of GPS information (e.g., GPS coordinates with respective timestamps), …and time (hours: minutes)… a segment”, Fig. 2B depicts that the point C has time interval of 1:02, and para[29], “display a visual representation of the GPS information at the user interface using a map software application”, para [27], “a general processor, a memory or other storage component(s”)
receive selection of any one of the items and sets the selected item as a first selection point; (Shaw, Fig.6 shows a first selection point setting unit (user interface) that receives selection of any one of the items and sets the selected item as a first selection point, para[44], “a start point and a finish (e.g., end) point along the visual representation of the GPS information are selected on the graphical map to define a segment”)
PNG
media_image1.png
857
1158
media_image1.png
Greyscale
extract, as second selection point candidates, the plurality of items each representing the position of the object with a second time interval longer than the first time interval from a time associated to the first selection point having been set (Shaw, Fig. 7 depicts a second point selection display unit (compared to Fig. 6 of start point as first point selection display unit) showing a selection of second point candidates (finish point) for a segment, and para[44], “a start point and a finish (e.g., end) point along the visual representation of the GPS information are selected on the graphical map to define a segment”, Fig. 2B depicts that the second points with User ID A and B has a time interval 3:10 and 2:56, respectively, which is longer than the first selection point C time interval of 1:02, and para[44], “series of GPS information (e.g., GPS coordinates with respective timestamps), …and time (hours: minutes)… a segment”))
and displays the extracted items in a selectable state; (Shaw, Fig. 6 depicts the extracted points (604, 606, 608) in a selectable state.)
and receive selection of any one of the second selection point candidates, set an item associated to the selected second selection point candidate as a second selection point, and set a section defined by the item having been set as the first selection point and the item having been set as the second selection point as a designated section, (Shaw, para[44], “a start point and a finish (e.g., end) point along the visual representation of the GPS information are selected on the graphical map to define a segment”)
PNG
media_image2.png
868
1162
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
275
707
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein after setting any one of the items as the first selection point,( (Shaw depicts in Fig 4 step 404 of setting a first selection point as a start point, the step 406 is performed after step 404)
PNG
media_image4.png
685
378
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the plurality of items each representing the position with a second time interval (Shaw, Fig. 7 depicts a second point selection display unit (compared to Fig. 6 of start point as first point selection display unit) showing a selection of second point candidates (finish point) for a segment, and para[44], “a start point and a finish (e.g., end) point along the visual representation of the GPS information are selected on the graphical map to define a segment”, Fig. 2B depicts that the second points with User ID A and B has a time interval 3:10 and 2:56, respectively, which is longer than the first selection point C time interval of 1:02, and para[44], “series of GPS information (e.g., GPS coordinates with respective timestamps), …and time (hours: minutes)… a segment”))
Shaw does not explicitly teach, but Tadman teaches:
the processor receives, …, correction of the first selection point to another item, and sets the another item as a corrected first selection point, (Tadman, para[44], “ A user may change the starting location of a driving tour by choosing a new location from a drop-down list”)
from a time associated to the corrected first selection point, (Tadman, para[63], “displaying estimated arrival or travel times for each segment”) Examiner’s note: Tadman teaches a method of correcting the starting location by choosing a new location and updating and displaying the estimated arrival or travel time for each route segment associated with the corrected starting location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a map information processing method from Shaw to include these above teachings from Tadman in order to include the processor receives, correction of the first selection point to another item, and sets the another item as a corrected first selection point and a time associated to the corrected first selection point. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide a great deal of flexibility” (Tadman, Description).
Shaw does not explicitly teach, but Maggiore teaches:
within the first time interval, (Maggiore, para [55], “within a threshold time interval (e.g., two minutes)”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a map information processing method from Shaw to include these above teachings from Maggiore in order to include within the first time interval. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make fine-grained section selection faster and easier.
Shaw does not explicitly teach, but Wu teaches:
and the processor extracts again, as the second selection point candidates, (Wu, para [05], “video summarisation and visualisation based on the extraction of frames at regular time instances”, and para [09], “automatic pan/zoom detect/extract functionality”) Examiner’s note: Wu teaches a method of automatically extracting multiple candidates with regular time interval.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a map information processing method from Shaw to include these above teachings from Wu in order to include the processor extracts again, as the second selection point candidates. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to automatically extract multiple candidates with regular intervals.
Regarding Claim 2:
Shaw in view of Tadman, Maggiore and Wu, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shaw teaches:
The display device according to claim 1, wherein the processor sets the second time interval based on at least one of object information indicating information regarding the object corresponding to the item or surrounding information indicating surroundings of the object corresponding to the item. ( Shaw, para[58], “The user is prompted to select the desired time… is determined based on the length of the effort in between the start and finish points”, and Fig.7 and para [59], “ a finish point is selected and also stored by the same techniques used for a start point”, Fig. 7 depicts that select an end point with second time interval.)
Regarding Claim 3:
Shaw in view of Tadman, Maggiore and Wu, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Shaw teaches:
The display device according to claim 2, wherein the object information is information regarding a speed of the object, ( Shaw, para[28], “time, speed (e.g., average and/or maximum speed per segment and/or route, in which average speed, for example, can be derived from time and GPS information)
and the processor sets the second time interval to be shorter as a traveling speed of the object increases, and sets the second time interval to be longer as the traveling speed of the object decreases. (Shaw, Fig. 2B depicts that the second points A and B has a time interval 3:10 and 2:56 is dependent on the speed”)
PNG
media_image5.png
329
846
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US20120254212A1) in view of Tadman (US20080168369A1), further in view of Wu (US20010016007A1), Maggiore (US 20220021847 A1) and Kroyzer (US 20210341303 A1).
Regarding Claim 4:
Shaw in view of Tadman, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Shaw does not explicitly teach, but Kroyzer teaches:
The display device according to claim 2, wherein the surrounding information is traffic jam status information, and the processor sets the second time interval to be longer in a case where the traffic jam status information is obtained than in a case where the traffic jam status information is not obtained. (Kroyzer, para[202], “other events may be more likely to persist for a longer time period, such as traffic jams… a traffic jam may be reported to a fleet of vehicles (e.g., a group of vehicles in a particular region) at predetermined time intervals (e.g., every minute, every five minutes, etc.) for the duration of the event.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an map information processing method from Shaw to include these above teachings from Kroyzer in order to include wherein the surrounding information is traffic jam status information, and the second selection point candidate display unit sets the second time interval to be longer in a case where the traffic jam status information is obtained than in a case where the traffic jam status information is not obtained. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “ improve safety conditions” (Kroyzer, Description).
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
112 (f) CLAIM INTERPRETATION. The amendments have overcome the 35 USC 112 (f) CLAIM INTERPRETATION.
112 (b) Rejection. The amendments have overcome the 35 USC 112 (b) rejections.
101 Rejection. The amendments have overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections.
103 Rejection. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-7 (See applicant’s response, page 9, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103”) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights