DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to claims filed 10/16/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis of Claim 1
Claim 1. A method comprising:
displaying, by a mapping application, a map at a first zoom level, wherein the map at the first zoom level includes a map element displayed at the first zoom level;
displaying, by the mapping application, on the map displayed at the first zoom level, a label corresponding to the map element, the label having a first size;
while displaying the map at the first zoom level: receiving, by the mapping application, user input selecting a second zoom level that is different from the first zoom level; and
responsive to receiving the user input: displaying, by the mapping application, the map at the second zoom level, wherein the map at the second zoom level includes the map element displayed at the second zoom level;
displaying, by the mapping application, on the map displayed at the second zoom level, the label corresponding to the map element, the label having the first size.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of displaying, by the mapping application, on the map displayed at the first zoom level, a label corresponding to the map element, the label having a first size. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “first zoom level” is data representative of a scale of the map. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “label,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data that defines a “map element,” where a “map element” is data representative of an element of a map. Particular sensors are not required to retrieve data for the “mapping application,” and the “displaying” step is recited in a generic manner. The “zoom level” is recited generically as simply being associated with the displayed data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. map element and map at a first zoom level) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. labeling the map element with a label of a particular size). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of displaying, by the mapping application, on the map displayed at the second zoom level, the label corresponding to the map element, the label having the first size. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “second zoom level” is data representative of a scale of the map. No particular technical solution is claimed, such that a specific algorithm is required to maintain the “first size” among different zoom levels. Particular sensors are not required to retrieve data for the “mapping application,” and the “displaying” step is recited in a generic manner. The “zoom level” is recited generically as simply being associated with the displayed data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. map element and map at a second zoom level) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. labeling the map element with a label of a particular size). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The recitation of the “mapping application” as performing the “displaying” steps is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. mapping application assumed to be installed on a computing device) as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. display a label having a first size for a first zoom level and a second zoom level) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
Overall, the abstract ideas presented above encompass a human, using a pen and paper, manually providing labels with font sizes consistent across different physical maps associated with different scaled relationships.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of:
displaying, by a mapping application, a map at a first zoom level, wherein the map at the first zoom level includes a map element displayed at the first zoom level;
while displaying the map at the first zoom level: receiving, by the mapping application, user input selecting a second zoom level that is different from the first zoom level;
responsive to receiving the user input: displaying, by the mapping application, the map at the second zoom level, wherein the map at the second zoom level includes the map element displayed at the second zoom level;
The first “displaying” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general display of a map including a map element at a first zoom level) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “receiving” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general receiving of user input of a second zoom level) and amounts to mere data gathering upon a generally recited condition (i.e. while displaying the map at the first zoom level), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The second “displaying” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general display of a map including a map element at a second zoom level) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “displaying” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “displaying” steps are found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The “mapping application” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose map environment. The mapping application is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the claimed steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the displaying and receiving steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites the map application as conventional and commonly used in a variety of known devices, and the specification does not provide any indication that the display is anything other than conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 2-8
Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of displaying, by the mapping application, on the map at the first zoom level, the map element having a third size; and displaying, by the mapping application, on the map at the second zoom level, the map element having a fourth size different from the third size. The claimed differences in sizes of the “map element” correspond to the differences in zoom levels and would inherently occur with differences in zoom levels. Further limiting the “map element” to be a third size at the first zoom level and a fourth size at the second zoom level represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the map element to be a third size at the first zoom level and a fourth size at the second zoom level does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 3 recites the additional elements of the map element having the fourth size is larger than the map element having the third size. Further limiting the “fourth size” of the map element to be larger than the third size represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the fourth size of the map element to be larger than the third size does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of the label displayed on the map at the first zoom level is displayed using a first font size; wherein the label displayed on the map displayed at the second zoom level is displayed using the first font size. Further limiting the “label” to be displayed using a first font size at the first zoom level and second zoom level represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the label to be displayed using a first font size at the first zoom level and second zoom level does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of:
displaying, by the mapping application, the map at a third zoom level, wherein the map displayed at the third zoom level shows the map element;
determining, by the mapping application, that the third zoom level exceeds a threshold;
responsive to determining that the third zoom level exceeds a threshold level: displaying, by the mapping application, on the map displayed at the third zoom level, the label corresponding to the map element, the label having a second size different from the first size.
The “determining” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. third zoom level) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine the third zoom level exceeds a threshold). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The second “displaying” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. map element and map at the third zoom level) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. labeling the map element with a label having a different size). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The first “displaying” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general display of a map including a map element at a third zoom level) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “displaying” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “displaying” steps are found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The “mapping application” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose map environment. The mapping application is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the claimed steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of the label displayed on the map at the first zoom level is displayed using a first font size; wherein the label displayed on the map displayed at the third zoom level is displayed using a second font size different from the first font size. Further limiting the “label” to be displayed using a first font size at the first zoom level and a second font size at the third zoom level represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the label to be displayed using a first font size at the first zoom level and a second font size at the third zoom level does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of:
displaying, by the mapping application, the map at a third zoom level, wherein the map at the third zoom level includes a second map element displayed at the third zoom level;
displaying, by the mapping application, on the map displayed at the third zoom level, a second label corresponding to the second map element, the second label having a second size;
while displaying the map at the third zoom level: receiving, by the mapping application, second user input selecting a fourth zoom level that is different from the third zoom level; and responsive to receiving the second user input:
displaying, by the mapping application, the map at the fourth zoom level, wherein the map at the fourth zoom level includes the second map element displayed at the fourth zoom level;
displaying, by the mapping application, on the map displayed at the fourth zoom level, the second label corresponding to the second map element, the second label having a third size, wherein a difference between the second size and the third size is within a threshold.
The limitation of displaying, by the mapping application, on the map displayed at the third zoom level, a second label corresponding to the second map element, the second label having a second size, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. second map element and map at a third zoom level) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. labeling the second map element with a second label of a particular size). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation of displaying, by the mapping application, on the map displayed at the fourth zoom level, the second label corresponding to the second map element, the second label having a third size, wherein a difference between the second size and the third size is within a threshold, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. second map element and map at a fourth zoom level) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. labeling the second map element with the second label of a different size). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The first “displaying” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general display of a map including a second map element at a third zoom level) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “receiving” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general receiving of user input of a fourth zoom level) and amounts to mere data gathering upon a generally recited condition (i.e. while displaying the map at the third zoom level), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The third “displaying” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general display of a map including a map element at a fourth zoom level) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “displaying” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “displaying” steps are found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The “mapping application” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose map environment. The mapping application is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the claimed steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of the map element comprises one of: a road, a point of interest, a city, a portion of a city, a state, a continent, or a body of water. Further limiting the “map element” to include a road, a point of interest, a city, a portion of a city, a state, a continent, or a body of water represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the map element to include a road, a point of interest, a city, a portion of a city, a state, a continent, or a body of water does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent 2-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
101 Analysis of Claim 9
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 9.
Claim 9. A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processing unit of a device, causes the at least one processing unit to perform operations comprising:
displaying, by a mapping application, a map at a first zoom level, wherein the map at the first zoom level includes a map element displayed at the first zoom level;
displaying, by the mapping application, on the map displayed at the first zoom level, a label corresponding to the map element, the label having a first size;
while displaying the map at the first zoom level: receiving, by the mapping application, user input selecting a second zoom level that is different from the first zoom level; and
responsive to receiving the user input: displaying, by the mapping application, the map at the second zoom level, wherein the map at the second zoom level includes the map element displayed at the second zoom level;
displaying, by the mapping application, on the map displayed at the second zoom level, the label corresponding to the map element, the label having the first size.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a product. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
See the analysis provided for claim 1 above.
The recitation of the additional computer elements (i.e. at least one processing unit) as performing the claimed operations is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. processing unit) as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. displaying and receiving steps) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
See the analysis provided for claim 1 above.
The element of the processing unit merely acts in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data), and therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
See the analysis provided for claim 1 above.
Additionally, the specification does not provide any indication that the processing unit is anything other than conventional.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 10-16
Dependent claims 10-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Specifically, claims 10-16 are identical to claims 2-8, respectively, and therefore, the limitation of claims 10-16 represent a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) with no additional computer-based elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B) using analyses similar to those discussed in the rejections of dependent claims 2-8 above.
Therefore, dependent claims 10-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 9.
101 Analysis of Claim 17
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 17.
Claim 17. A system comprising:
at least one processing unit; and
a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processing unit of a device, causes the at least one processing unit to perform operations comprising:
displaying, by a mapping application, a map at a first zoom level, wherein the map at the first zoom level includes a map element displayed at the first zoom level;
displaying, by the mapping application, on the map displayed at the first zoom level, a label corresponding to the map element, the label having a first size;
while displaying the map at the first zoom level: receiving, by the mapping application, user input selecting a second zoom level that is different from the first zoom level; and
responsive to receiving the user input:
displaying, by the mapping application, the map at the second zoom level, wherein the map at the second zoom level includes the map element displayed at the second zoom level;
displaying, by the mapping application, on the map displayed at the second zoom level, the label corresponding to the map element, the label having the first size.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
See the analysis provided for claim 1 above.
The recitation of the additional computer elements (i.e. at least one processing unit and a non-transitory machine-readable medium) as performing the claimed operations is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. processing unit) as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. displaying and receiving steps) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
See the analysis provided for claim 1 above.
The elements of the processing unit and non-transitory computer readable medium merely act in their ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data), and therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
See the analysis provided for claim 1 above.
Additionally, the specification does not provide any indication that the processing unit and non-transitory computer readable medium is anything other than conventional.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 18-20
Dependent claims 18-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Specifically, claims 18-20 are identical to claims 2-4, respectively, and therefore, the limitation of claims 18-20 represent a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) with no additional computer-based elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B) using analyses similar to those discussed in the rejections of dependent claims 2-4 above.
Therefore, dependent claims 18-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 17.
Claims 1-20 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation of the third zoom level. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 6 depends from claim 4. A “third zoom level” is introduced in claims 2 and 5. A “third zoom level” cannot be considered an inherent feature, and one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably glean if an error in claim dependency was made.
Key to Interpreting the Prior Art Rejections
For readability, all claim language has been underlined.
Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parentheses.
Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation.
The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miller (US 8,896,630 B1), hereinafter Miller.
Claim 1
Miller discloses the claimed method (see Figure 7) comprising:
displaying, by a mapping application, a map at a first zoom level, wherein the map at the first zoom level includes a map element (i.e. map vector data) displayed at the first zoom level (see col. 11, lines 48-51, with respect to step 128 of Figure 7, regarding that the map vector data is displayed at a given zoom level, where the method 120 is performed at a client device such as any computer device 16, 18, 20, 22 operated by a consumer via a user interface while using a mapping application; col. 5, line 58-col. 6, line 19, regarding the mapping application available on the client device);
displaying, by the mapping application, on the map displayed at the first zoom level, a label corresponding to the map element, the label having a first size (see col. 11, lines 52-64, with respect to step 130 of Figure 7, regarding that label text corresponding to displayed map features is displayed using the label style information including font size of the label for the given zoom level, where the method 120 is performed at a client device such as any computer device 16, 18, 20, 22 operated by a consumer via a user interface while using a mapping application; col. 5, line 58-col. 6, line 19, regarding the mapping application available on the client device);
while displaying the map at the first zoom level: receiving, by the mapping application, user input selecting a second zoom level that is different from the first zoom level (see col. 12, lines 7-8, with respect to step 132 of Figure 7, regarding that a request to display the map data at a new zoom level is received, where the client device sends the request for new information related to zoom operations, as described in col. 11, lines 27-38, and method 120 is performed at a client device such as any computer device 16, 18, 20, 22 operated by a consumer via a user interface while using a mapping application; col. 5, line 58-col. 6, line 19, regarding the mapping application available on the client device); and
responsive to receiving the user input: displaying, by the mapping application, the map at the second zoom level, wherein the map at the second zoom level includes the map element displayed at the second zoom level (see col. 12, lines 7-26, with respect to steps 132, 134, and 136 of Figure 7, regarding that the map data is displayed at the new zoom level requested in step 132, where the method 120 is performed at a client device such as any computer device 16, 18, 20, 22 operated by a consumer via a user interface while using a mapping application; col. 5, line 58-col. 6, line 19, regarding the mapping application available on the client device);
displaying, by the mapping application, on the map displayed at the second zoom level, the label corresponding to the map element, the label having the first size (see col. 12, lines 8-26, with respect to steps 134 and 138 of Figure 7, regarding that when the requested new zoom level is within the range of zoom levels for which the currently displayed label data is valid, the currently displayed label data, including the text and style, is retained; col. 4, lines 29-39, regarding that labels include style definitions that provide font/size for a particular range of zoom levels, e.g., store name is provided at a 10 point font size for zoom levels 16-19, as described in col. 9, lines 37-48, where the method 120 is performed at a client device such as any computer device 16, 18, 20, 22 operated by a consumer via a user interface while using a mapping application; col. 5, line 58-col. 6, line 19, regarding the mapping application available on the client device).
Claims 2, 10, and 18
Miller discloses that the claimed method further comprises displaying, by the mapping application, on the map at the first zoom level, the map element having a third size (see col. 11, lines 48-51, with respect to step 128 of Figure 7, regarding that the map vector data is displayed at a given zoom level); and displaying, by the mapping application, on the map at the second zoom level, the map element having a fourth size different from the third size (see col. 12, lines 7-26, with respect to steps 132, 134, and 136 of Figure 7, regarding that the map data is displayed at the new zoom level requested in step 132; col. 9, lines 55-67, with respect to Figures 3A-C depicting zoom levels 14, 15, and 16 respectively, where the map data is displayed at different sizes).
Claims 3, 11, and 19
Miller further discloses that the map element having the fourth size is larger than the map element having the third size (see col. 9, lines 55-67, with respect to the example depicted in Figures 3A-C, depicting the increase in zoom level increases the size of the map data).
Claims 4, 12, and 20
Miller further discloses that the label displayed on the map at the first zoom level is displayed using a first font size (see col. 11, lines 52-64, with respect to step 130 of Figure 7, regarding that label text corresponding to displayed map features is displayed using the label style information including font size of the label for the given zoom level); wherein the label displayed on the map displayed at the second zoom level is displayed using the first font size (see col. 12, lines 8-26, with respect to steps 134 and 138 of Figure 7, regarding that when the requested new zoom level is within the range of zoom levels for which the currently displayed label data is valid, the currently displayed label data, including the text and style, is retained; col. 4, lines 29-39, regarding that labels include style definitions that provide font/size for a particular range of zoom levels, e.g., store name is provided at a 10 point font size for zoom levels 16-19, as described in col. 9, lines 37-48), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 5 and 13
Miller further discloses that the claimed method comprises:
displaying, by the mapping application, the map at a third zoom level, wherein the map displayed at the third zoom level shows the map element (see col. 12, lines 7-26, with respect to steps 132, 134, and 136 of Figure 7, regarding that the map data is displayed at the new zoom level requested in step 132);
determining, by the mapping application, that the third zoom level exceeds a threshold (i.e. maximum zoom level) (see col. 12, lines 7-26, regarding determining that the new zoom level is within a range of zoom levels for which the currently displayed label data is valid, specified as minimum and maximum zoom levels);
responsive to determining that the third zoom level exceeds a threshold level: displaying, by the mapping application, on the map displayed at the third zoom level, the label corresponding to the map element, the label having a second size different from the first size (see col. 11, lines 7-57, with respect to steps 134 and 138 of Figure 7, regarding that when the currently displayed label data is not valid for the new zoom level, i.e., the zoom level is outside of the range of zoom levels for which the currently displayed label data is valid, new label data is displayed at the new zoom level; col. 4, lines 29-39, regarding different fonts/sizes are provided for different ranges of zoom levels; col. 8, lines 46-51, regarding the example in which city labels for zoom levels 4-6 are a 10 point font, while city labels for zoom levels 7-10 are a 12 point font).
Claims 6 and 14
See the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Miller further discloses that the label displayed on the map at the first zoom level is displayed using a first font size (see col. 11, lines 52-64, with respect to step 130 of Figure 7, regarding that label text corresponding to displayed map features is displayed using the label style information including font size of the label for the given zoom level); wherein the label displayed on the map displayed at the third zoom level is displayed using a second font size different from the first font size (see col. 11, lines 7-57, with respect to steps 134 and 138 of Figure 7, regarding that when the currently displayed label data is not valid for the new zoom level, i.e., the zoom level is outside of the range of zoom levels for which the currently displayed label data is valid, new label data is displayed at the new zoom level; col. 4, lines 29-39, regarding different fonts/sizes are provided for different ranges of zoom levels).
Claims 7 and 15
In light of the plurality of zoom levels taught by Miller (see tables 1 and 2), the method of Figure 7 may be applied to teach zoom levels different from those discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Miller further discloses that the claimed method comprises:
displaying, by the mapping application, the map at a third zoom level, wherein the map at the third zoom level includes a second map element displayed at the third zoom level (see col. 11, lines 48-51, with respect to step 128 of Figure 7, regarding that the map vector data is displayed at a given zoom level);
displaying, by the mapping application, on the map displayed at the third zoom level, a second label corresponding to the second map element, the second label having a second size (see col. 11, lines 52-64, with respect to step 130 of Figure 7, regarding that label text corresponding to displayed map features is displayed using the label style information including font size of the label for the given zoom level);
while displaying the map at the third zoom level: receiving, by the mapping application, second user input selecting a fourth zoom level that is different from the third zoom level (see col. 12, lines 7-8, with respect to step 132 of Figure 7, regarding that a request to display the map data at a new zoom level is received); and
responsive to receiving the second user input: displaying, by the mapping application, the map at the fourth zoom level, wherein the map at the fourth zoom level includes the second map element displayed at the fourth zoom level (see col. 12, lines 7-26, with respect to steps 132, 134, and 136 of Figure 7, regarding that the map data is displayed at the new zoom level requested in step 132);
displaying, by the mapping application, on the map displayed at the fourth zoom level, the second label corresponding to the second map element, the second label having a third size (see col. 11, lines 7-57, with respect to steps 134 and 138 of Figure 7, regarding that when the currently displayed label data is not valid for the new zoom level, i.e., the zoom level is outside of the range of zoom levels for which the currently displayed label data is valid, new label data is displayed at the new zoom level; col. 4, lines 29-39, regarding different fonts/sizes are provided for different ranges of zoom levels), wherein a difference between the second size and the third size is within a threshold (see col. 9, lines 4-48, regarding that the label data is generated from a predefined type table that associates ranges of zoom levels with particular label sizes).
Given the predefined sizes associated with the ranges of zoom levels, a difference between defined sizes is inherently “within a threshold.” The claimed “threshold” merely exists as a relationship between two sizes and is not determined to influence any claimed operations.
Claims 8 and 16
Miller discloses that the map element comprises one of: a road, a point of interest, a city, a portion of a city, a state, a continent, or a body of water (see col. 10, lines 41-55, regarding that the map vector data includes a city feature type or street feature type; Figures 3A-C, depicting embodiments of map vector data that include “points of interest” and “roads”).
Claim 9
Miller discloses the claimed non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions (see col. 13, lines 13-26) which, when executed by at least one processing unit of a device, causes the at least one processing unit to perform operations discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 17
Miller discloses the claimed system (see Figure 1) comprising at least one processing unit, and a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a mapping application (see col. 13, line 5-col. 14, line 21) which, when executed by the at least one processing unit to perform operations discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Tateishi et al. (translation of JP 6-348810) teaches the display of a map that includes scale-dependent data and scale-independent data, where the scale-independent data is displayed in a predetermined size (see ¶0006), Bales et al. (US 2011/0313649 A1) teaches increasing the size of text 419 while the size of text associated with street 407 remains the same in response to zooming operations (see ¶0077, with respect to Figure 4), and Katakawa et al. (US 2014/0375648 A1) teaches calculating the display range of an object in an image when the change in zoom level is greater than a threshold (see ¶0078, with respect to Figure 12), where the image may be a map image (see ¶0037).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661