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 .
Specification
Title of the Invention
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
DISPLAYING, IN A FIRST REGION OF A SCREEN OF AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE, A MAP VIEW DISPLAYING A MAP OF A GEOGRAPHICAL AREA COMPRISING A PARTICULAR LOCATION
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not relevant to the current set of claims dated 8/5/24. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directed to a method comprising the steps of: displaying, displaying, displaying and modifying which are nothing more than software instructions. Software instructions are non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and comprise additional steps, for example see claim 4 with the steps of modifying and displaying, therefore claims 2-8 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 9-11 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UNNIKRISHNAN (US2014/0053077A1 from IDS filed on 11/29/24) in view of GEELEN (US2008/0168398A1).
Regarding claim 1, UNNIKRISHNAN teaches:
1. A method comprising:
displaying, in a first region of a screen of an electronic device, a map view displaying a map of a geographical area comprising a particular location (UNNIKRISHNAN: fig. 4, 210 see par. 39);
concurrently with displaying the map view in the first region: displaying, in a second region of the screen of the electronic device, a street view corresponding to a portion of the geographical area as viewed from the particular location (UNNIKRISHNAN: fig. 4, 212 see par. 39),
wherein the street view includes a particular object that is located in the portion of the geographical area (UNNIKRISHNAN: fig. 4 see par. 39; note: the examiner has interpreted the haircut salon as the particular object);
displaying, on the map, a first graphical map element indicating (a) the particular location (UNNIKRISHNAN: fig. 2: 220, 222, 224 see par. 31) and (b) a direction from the particular location toward the portion of the geographical area corresponding to the street view (UNNIKRISHNAN: fig. 2: 210, 212, 224 see par. 31 lines 9-15);
in the map view, modifying a position of a first graphical map element corresponding to the particular object while the particular object is included in the street view (UNNIKRISHNAN: fig. 4: 220, 410, 210, 212 see par. 39; note: the examiner has interpreted the haircut salon as the particular object).
UNNIKRISHNAN doesn’t teach however the analogous prior art GEELEN teaches:
modifying an appearance of a second graphical map element corresponding to a particular object (GEELEN: par. 102; note: the examiner has interpreted the icon of the POI as a second graphical map element).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine modifying an appearance of a second graphical map element corresponding to a particular object as shown in GEELEN with UNNIKRISHNAN for the benefit of improving accuracy, processor speed, and ease of user interaction, etc. with a navigation device 200 [113].
Regarding claim 2, UNNIKRISHNAN as modified by GEELEN (with the same motivation from claim 1) further teaches:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein modifying the appearance of the second graphical map element includes one of highlighting the second graphical map element, increasing a size of the second graphical map element, or changing a color of the second graphical map element (GEELEN: par. 102).
Regarding claim 3, UNNIKRISHNAN teaches:
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the particular location is selected by a user or determined based on the electronic device being physically located at the particular location (UNNIKRISHNAN: fig. 4 see also par. 39 (the search button and textbox) suggest that the particular location is selected by a user).
Claim 9 is analogous to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 9 requires a different preamble, also taught by UNNIKRISHNAN:
9. A non-transitory computer readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (UNNIKRISHNAN: par. 17 lines 10-18).
Claim 10 is analogous to claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 11 is analogous to claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 17 is analogous to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 17 further requires a different preamble and two additional limitations also taught by UNNIKRISHNAN.
17. An electronic device comprising (UNNIKRISHNAN: fig. 1, 115 see par. 25 lines 7-10 and par. 26 lines 10-14):
one or more processors (UNNIKRISHNAN: fig. 1, 115 see par 26 lines 10-14; POSITA would recognize that a client device comprises one or more processors); and
a non-transitory computer readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (UNNIKRISHNAN: fig. 1, 115 see par 26 lines 10-14; POSITA would recognize that a client device comprises a non-transitory computer readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations).
Claim 18 is analogous to claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 19 is analogous to claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 would be objected to (except for the 101 rejection) as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-16 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4-8, 12-16 and 20 the prior art doesn’t teach:
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
modifying the street view to present a second portion of the geographical area that does not include the particular object; and
responsive to the particular object no longer being included in the street view, displaying the second graphical map element in accordance with a prior appearance of the second graphical map element prior to the modifying operation.
5. The method of Claim 1, wherein the appearance of the second graphical map element is modified in response to the particular object being included in the street view.
6. The method of Claim 1, wherein the appearance of the second graphical map element is modified to indicate that the particular object, corresponding to the second graphical map element, is being displayed in the street view.
7. The method of Claim 1, wherein the operations further include modifying an appearance of a part of the map corresponding to the portion of the geographical area while the street view includes the portion of the geographical area.
8. The method of Claim 7, wherein the appearance of the part of the map is modified to indicate that the portion of the geographical area is being displayed in the street view.
12. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 9, the operations further comprising:
modifying the street view to present a second portion of the geographical area that does not include the particular object; and
responsive to the particular object no longer being included in the street view, displaying the second graphical map element in accordance with a prior appearance of the second graphical map element prior to the modifying operation.
13. The non-transitory computer readable medium of Claim 9, wherein the appearance of the second graphical map element is modified in response to the particular object being included in the street view.
14. The non-transitory computer readable medium of Claim 9, wherein the appearance of the second graphical map element is modified to indicate that the particular object, corresponding to the second graphical map element, is being displayed in the street view.
15. The non-transitory computer readable medium of Claim 9, wherein the operations further include modifying an appearance of a part of the map corresponding to the portion of the geographical area while the street view includes the portion of the geographical area.
16. The non-transitory computer readable medium of Claim 15, wherein the appearance of the part of the map is modified to indicate that the portion of the geographical area is being displayed in the street view.
20. The electronic device of claim 17, the operations further comprising:
modifying the street view to present a second portion of the geographical area that does not include the particular object; and
responsive to the particular object no longer being included in the street view, displaying the second graphical map element in accordance with a prior appearance of the second graphical map element prior to the modifying operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE L MCDOWELL, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur & Sat: 2pm-10pm.
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, Said A. Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/MAURICE L. MCDOWELL, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612