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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
Examiner acknowledges parent applications (15/274,260 now US Patent 10,739,157, 16/917,453 now US Patent 11,486,724, whose allowed claims at present appears to be different enough in scope than the instant application to not require a Double Patenting rejection. However, examiner reserves the right to make a Double Patenting rejection in the future should the scope of the claims of the instant application veer in the direction of said US Patents above.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,259,252. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Regarding claim 1 of the instant application:
Claim 1 of Instant Application:
Claim 18 of ‘252 Patent:
A method comprising:
displaying at least a portion of a navigated route on a display of a device;
determining that a current location of the device is within a threshold distance of a first location associated with the navigated route,
wherein the first location is not represented in the displayed portion of the navigated route when the device is determined to be within the threshold distance of the first location; and
responsive to determining that the current location of the device is within the threshold distance of the first location, generating a first navigation presentation having a first map view that frames:
(a) a first graphical object representing the current location of the device, and
(b) a second graphical object representing the first location along the navigated route.
A method comprising:
displaying at least a portion of a navigated route on a display of a device;
identifying a maneuver along the navigated route; determining that the device is within a threshold distance of the maneuver,
wherein the maneuver is not represented in the displayed portion of the navigated route when the device is determined to be within the threshold distance of the maneuver; and
responsive to determining that the device is within the threshold distance of the maneuver, generating a first navigation presentation having a first map view that frames:
(a) a first graphical object representing the current location of the device, and
(b) a second graphical object representing the maneuver along the navigated route.
As seen above, the limitations of the instant applications’ claim 1 is broader than and fully encompassed by the limitations of claim 18 of ‘252 Patent. Therefore, the limitations of claim 18 of ‘252 Patent fully anticipates the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application and is therefore rejected under Double Patenting provisions. Independent claims 8 and 15 of the instant application are similarly met by claims 1 and 10 of ‘252 Patent, respectively. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected based on the recitations of claims 1-20 of ‘252 Patent and anticipates the claims of the instant application.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nozoe (US 2011/0295499).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Nozoe teaches a system/method comprising:
one or more processors (paragraph 27); and
a computer readable storage medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (paragraph 27), causes the processors to perform operations comprising:
displaying at least a portion of a navigated route on a display of a device (Figs. 3-4, 7A-8C, 10A-10C and 12A-12C displays a portion of a navigated route on the display);
determining that a current location of the device is within a threshold distance of a first location associated with the navigated route (paragraph 118), wherein the first location is not represented in the displayed portion of the navigated route when the device is determined to be within the threshold distance of the first location (paragraphs 40-44 and 118 and flowchart in Fig. 6, wherein when the device is within a “predetermined distance” to the next route point, the system determines an “execution condition” to perform switching from a first screen G11 to a second screen G12 (see Figs). In G11, the next route point is not in the display region R); and
responsive to determining that the current location of the device is within the threshold distance of the first location, generating a first navigation presentation having a first map view that frames: (a) a first graphical object representing the current location of the device, and (b) a second graphical object representing the first location along the navigated route (paragraphs 40-44 and 118 and flowchart in Fig. 6, wherein when the device is within a “predetermined distance” to the next route point, the system determines an “execution condition” to perform switching from a first screen G11 to a second screen G12 (see Figs). In G11, the next route point is not in the display region R. The switch to a second screen G12 in which the next route point is calculated by determining a calculated tilt angle. Therefore, as a result of the execution condition (predetermined distance) being met, the system switches to frame the current location and the next route point within the same screen G12 in the display region R).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Nozoe teaches the claimed wherein the first location corresponds to a point of interest (POI) that is a destination for the navigated route (paragraphs 40-44 and 118 and flowchart in Fig. 6, wherein the first location is a POI destination in the route, which would be the final navigational instruction).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Nozoe teaches the claimed wherein the first location corresponds to a POI that is along the navigated route toward a particular destination (paragraphs 40-44 and 118 and flowchart in Fig. 6, wherein the first location is a POI along the route, e.g. one of the turns or intersections, etc.).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Nozoe teaches the claimed wherein the first location is framed at a top of the first navigation presentation, and wherein the first map view also frames a plurality of second locations ahead of the first graphical object on the navigated route (see Figs. 3-4, 7A-8C, 10A-10C and 12A-12C teaches wherein multiple upcoming route points are also displayed).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Nozoe teaches the claimed wherein a zoom level for the first map view is selected such that the first graphical object representing the current location of the device, and the second graphical object representing the first location are concurrently displayed at all times (paragraph 115 teaches wherein the system is set to always show the current location and a predetermined ordinal number of the route point during the trip. E.g. when set to one, the current location and the next route point are maintained).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Nozoe teaches the claimed further comprising: determining that a first point of interest is not within a threshold distance of the current location of the device; and responsive to determining that the first point of interest is not within the threshold distance of the current location of the device: refraining from including the first point of interest in the map view that includes the first graphical object representing the current location of the device and the second graphical object representing the first location along the navigated route (paragraphs 40-44 and 118 and flowchart in Fig. 6, wherein when the device is within a “predetermined distance” to the next route point, the system determines an “execution condition” to perform switching from a first screen G11 to a second screen G12 (see Figs). In G11, the next route point is not in the display region R. The switch to a second screen G12 in which the next route point is calculated by determining a calculated tilt angle. Therefore, as a result of the execution condition (predetermined distance) being met, the system switches to frame the current location and the next route point within the same screen G12 in the display region R. Therefore prior to the “predetermined distance” being reached, an alternative method teaches not framing both the current location and the next route point on the display region R).
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozoe (US 2011/0295499) in view of Hirose (US 2005/0099323).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Nozoe teaches the claimed as discussed in claims 1, 8 and 15 above, however fails, but Hirose teaches wherein the first location corresponds to a traffic incident (Figs. 11-12 and paragraph 131 teaches wherein when traffic incidents are detected along the route, the traffic incident “C” and the current location “A” are framed together from a transition of Fig. 11 to Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Hirose into the system of Nozoe because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the user convenience and user convenience (paragraph 138).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Konig et al. (US 2017/0314945) teaches a system that provides alternative routes between a decision point and a destination.
Tertoolen et al. (US 2016/0252363) provides a fast forward preview of an upcoming decision point by advancing the position of the camera for the 3D perspective view when the current position is closer than a predetermined distance to a decision point.
Kachi et al. (US 2016/0148503) teaches a traffic information guide system, a traffic information guide device, a traffic information guide method, and a computer program that enable easily understandable precise traffic information to be provided to a user even in a case where several traffic information items are concentrated around the same location.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GELEK W TOPGYAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9:30-6 PST).
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/GELEK W TOPGYAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481