DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 filed March 10th 2026 are pending in the current 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 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.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 13-16 resolve the prior 101 rejection and the 101 rejection is withdrawn.
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, 2, 7-10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piemonte et al. (US2013/0321403) in view of O’Connell et al. (US2018/034451)
Consider claim 1, where Piemonte discloses a map image processing method, comprising: obtaining a map image to be processed; (See Piemonte Figs. 7A, 7B and ¶155-156 where a virtual camera obtains 2D map image data 720) and highlighting a focus color in the map image to obtain a highlighted map image, wherein the focus color is a more noticeable when displayed in the map image. (See Piemonte Figs. 7A, 7B and ¶161 highlighting of the selected 3D feature may be applied by modifying the image data for the blurred version of the map or the unblurred version of the selected 3D feature during rendering. For example, in some embodiments, the color value, brightness, contrast, and/or color saturation for the pixels of the blurred map may be modified so that features in the blurred map other than the selected feature may be less noticeable (e.g., so that they appear duller, softer, or more muted when compared to the selected feature), or so that the difference between the selected feature and all other (non-selected) features depicted in the map is more noticeable.)
Piemonte teaches a more noticeable highlighted element, however Piemonte does not explicitly teach a distinct color. However, in an analogous field of endeavor O’Connell teaches a distinct color. (See O’Connell ¶56 where in some implementations, map application 104 can further highlight the geographic area by shading the geographic area with a distinct color and/or pattern.) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the highlighting of the Piemonte to be a distinct color as taught by O’Connell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known methods for highlighting a noticeable feature.
Consider claim 2, where Piemonte in view of O’Connell teaches the map image processing method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of highlighting the focus color in the map image to obtain the highlighted map image comprises: increasing saturation or brightness of the focus color. (See Piemonte ¶161 where in some embodiments, the color value, brightness, contrast, and/or color saturation for the pixels of the blurred map may be modified so that features in the blurred map other than the selected feature may be less noticeable (e.g., so that they appear duller, softer, or more muted when compared to the selected feature), or so that the difference between the selected feature and all other (non-selected) features depicted in the map is more noticeable.)
Consider claim 7, where Piemonte in view of O’Connell teaches the map image processing method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of highlighting the focus color in the map image to obtain the highlighted map image comprises: determining the focus color in the map image based on a current scenario. (See Piemonte ¶161, 186 where embodiments may also analyze map tiles for specified features that may be associated with certain map styles that contain style identifiers. The color value, brightness, contrast, and/or color saturation for the pixels of the blurred map may be modified so that features in the blurred map other than the selected feature may be less noticeable)
Consider claim 8, where Piemonte in view of O’Connell teaches the map image processing method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of highlighting the focus color in the map image to obtain the highlighted map image comprises: in a map navigation scenario, highlighting the focus color in the map image to obtain the highlighted map image: (See Piemonte Fig. 3 and ¶146 where when a user is navigating to a destination, a navigation application may select a point of interest along the user's route as a landmark for traversing the route, or to suggest that the user visit the selected point of interest. In response to these and other situations in which a map feature is selected, a map tool of the mapping application or navigation application may highlight the selected feature in the 3D map using any or all of the techniques described herein. ) wherein the map image processing method further comprises displaying the highlighted map image after the step of highlighting the focus color in the map image to obtain the highlighted map image. (See Piemonte ¶149-151 where the device displays a modified version of the 3D map after highlighting the selected feature)
Consider claim 9, where Piemonte in view of O’Connell teaches a map image processing device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory and the processor are coupled to each other, (See Piemonte Fig. 1A where there is a chip 104/ processor 120 coupled to a memory 102) wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement the method as claimed in claim 1. (See rejection of claim 1 above)
Consider claim 10, where Piemonte in view of O’Connell teaches a map image processing device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory and the processor are coupled to each other, (See Piemonte Fig. 1A where there is a chip 104/ processor 120 coupled to a memory 102) wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement the method as claimed in claim 2. (See rejection of claim 2 above)
Consider claim 13, where Piemonte in view of O’Connell teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, configured to store instructions/program data, (See Piemonte Fig. 1A where there is a chip 104/ processor 120 coupled to a memory 102) wherein the instructions/program data implement the method as claimed in claim 1 when executed. (See rejection of claim 1 above)
Consider claim 14, where Piemonte in view of O’Connell teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, configured to store instructions/program data, (See Piemonte Fig. 1A where there is a chip 104/ processor 120 coupled to a memory 102) wherein the instructions/program data implement the method as claimed in claim 2 when executed. (See rejection of claim 2 above)
Claim(s) 3-5, 11-12, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piemonte in view of O’Connell as applied to claim 1 above, in further in view of Dong et al. (US8,482,575)
Consider claim 3, where Piemonte in view of O’Connell teaches the map image processing method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the step of highlighting the focus color in the map image to obtain the highlighted map image comprises: analyzing the map image to obtain an analysis result of the map image; (See Piemonte ¶161, 186 where embodiments may also analyze map tiles for specified features that may be associated with certain map styles that contain style identifiers. The color value, brightness, contrast, and/or color saturation for the pixels of the blurred map may be modified so that features in the blurred map other than the selected feature may be less noticeable)
However Piemonte does not explicitly teach increasing the saturation or brightness of the focus color based on the analysis result. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Dong teaches increasing the saturation or brightness of the focus color based on the analysis result. (See Dong Fig. 5 and col 10 line 38- col 11 line 3, col 2 line 18-57 where highlighting color sets can be calculated according to a hue difference standard and contrast ratio standard. The colors may be modified using a Hue, Saturation, Luminance Value or Brightness, or RGB value. The method commences with the step of producing a histogram having a first axis corresponding to a measurable property such as luminance and a second axis corresponding to a count of pixels having a particular value for the measurable property. The modified histogram is used to adjust the value of the first measurable property in the digital form, thereby producing a contrast enhanced image) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modification of the color value, brightness, contrast, and/or color saturation for the pixels performed by Piemonte with the highlighting color set calculations as taught by Dong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known techniques to increase the contrast of the highlight element to improve visibility. (See Dong’s abstract)
Consider claim 4, where Piemonte in view of O’Connell in view of Dong teaches the map image processing method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the analysis result of the map image comprises distribution of each focus color in the map image; wherein an amount of increase in the saturation or brightness of the focus color is positively correlated to a distribution value of the focus color. (See Dong Fig. 5 and col 10 line 38- col 11 line 3, col 2 line 18-57 where highlighting color sets can be calculated according to a hue difference standard and contrast ratio standard. The colors may be modified using a Hue, Saturation, Luminance Value or Brightness, or RGB value. The method commences with the step of producing a histogram having a first axis corresponding to a measurable property such as luminance and a second axis corresponding to a count of pixels having a particular value for the measurable property. The modified histogram is used to adjust the value of the first measurable property in the digital form, thereby producing a contrast enhanced image) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modification of the color value, brightness, contrast, and/or color saturation for the pixels performed by Piemonte with the highlighting color set calculations as taught by Dong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known techniques to increase the contrast of the highlight element to improve visibility. (See Dong’s abstract)
Consider claim 5, where Piemonte in view of O’Connell in view of Dong teaches the map image processing method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the step of analyzing the map image to obtain the analysis result of the map image comprises: analyzing a histogram of at least one channel of the map image to obtain the analysis result, wherein the at least one channel of the map image comprises a Y channel, an R channel, a G channel, a B channel, an H channel, an S channel and a V channel. (See Dong Fig. 5 and col 10 line 38- col 11 line 3, col 2 line 18-57 where highlighting color sets can be calculated according to a hue difference standard and contrast ratio standard. The colors may be modified using a Hue, Saturation, Luminance Value or Brightness, or RGB value. The method commences with the step of producing a histogram having a first axis corresponding to a measurable property such as luminance and a second axis corresponding to a count of pixels having a particular value for the measurable property. The modified histogram is used to adjust the value of the first measurable property in the digital form, thereby producing a contrast enhanced image) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modification of the color value, brightness, contrast, and/or color saturation for the pixels performed by Piemonte with the highlighting color set calculations as taught by Dong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known techniques to increase the contrast of the highlight element to improve visibility. (See Dong’s abstract)
Consider claim 11, where Piemonte in view of O’Connell in view of Dong teaches map image processing device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory and the processor are coupled to each other, (See Piemonte Fig. 1A where there is a chip 104/ processor 120 coupled to a memory 102) wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement the method as claimed in claim 3. (See rejection of claim 3 above)
Consider claim 12, where Piemonte in view of Dong teaches a map image processing device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory and the processor are coupled to each other, (See Piemonte Fig. 1A where there is a chip 104/ processor 120 coupled to a memory 102) wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement the method as claimed in claim 4. (See rejection of claim 4 above)
Consider claim 15, where Piemonte in view of O’Connell in view of Dong teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, configured to store instructions/program data, (See Piemonte Fig. 1A where there is a chip 104/ processor 120 coupled to a memory 102) wherein the instructions/program data implement the method as claimed in claim 3 when executed. (See rejection of claim 3 above)
Consider claim 16, where Piemonte in view of O’Connell in view of Dong teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, configured to store instructions/program data, (See Piemonte Fig. 1A where there is a chip 104/ processor 120 coupled to a memory 102) wherein the instructions/program data implement the method as claimed claim 4 when executed. (See rejection of claim 4 above)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piemonte in view of O’Connell as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Wanat et al. (US2017/0116963)
Consider claim 6, where Piemonte in view of O’Connell teaches the map image processing method as claimed in claim 1, however, Piemonte does not explicitly teach wherein the step of highlighting the focus color in the map image to obtain the highlighted map image comprises: increasing saturation or brightness of the focus color based on an ambient brightness: wherein an amount of increase in the saturation or brightness of the focus color is positively correlated to the ambient brightness. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Wanat teaches increasing saturation or brightness of the focus color based on an ambient brightness: wherein an amount of increase in the saturation or brightness of the focus color is positively correlated to the ambient brightness. (See Wanat ¶36, 42 where In a preferred embodiment, a perceptual quantizer function maps linear input gray levels to output gray levels that better match the contrast sensitivity thresholds in the human visual system than traditional gamma functions. An example of a PQ mapping function is described in the SMPTE ST 2084 specification, where given a fixed stimulus size, for every luminance level (i.e., the stimulus level), a minimum visible contrast step at that luminance level is selected according to the most sensitive adaptation level and the most sensitive spatial frequency (according to HVS Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF) models, which are analogous to spatial MTFs). That mapping function was derived for a viewing environment with minimal ambient surround light, such as a completely dark room. Hence, it is desirable to compute alternative PQ mapping functions, to be referred to as PQ′, by taking into consideration the viewing conditions, and in particular, the intensity of the ambient light. For example, taking into consideration the ambient light ensures that details in the dark areas of the image do not become uniformly black when the scene is viewed in a brighter environment.) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modification of the color value, brightness, contrast, and/or color saturation for the pixels performed by Piemonte by ensuring a minimum perceptual quantization by accounting for ambient surround light as taught by Wanat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of ensuring that the highlighted portions in Piemonte meet a minimum perceptual threshold such that the user may easily perceive the highlight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 WILLIAM LU whose telephone number is (571)270-1809. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
WILLIAM LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/WILLIAM LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights