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 in view of . 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, adjusting a zoom level to generate a first navigation presentation with 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.
While claim 18 of ‘253 Patent teaches all the same limitations as noted in the table above, fails to teach, however, Foo remedies this difference and discloses adjusting a zoom level to generate the required combined framing. Foo teaches that the map scale in the vicinity of the vehicle’s current location is determined “such that the next maneuver… is within a certain display distance (i.e., close enough to display on the screen along with the correct vehicle location…),” and specifically discloses: “One approach to this calculation is to calculate a maximum map scale based on the distance from the current vehicle location to the next maneuver point such that the display can fit both the current location and the maneuver point. If this maximum scale exceeds a pre-set threshold, the scale is reduced to the threshold” see Foo at paragraph 0048. Because the scale required to fit both points is a function of the distance between them, gating the scale adjustment on a pre-set threshold is equivalent to gating it on a corresponding threshold distance between the current location and the maneuver point: when that point is far enough away that the fit-scale would exceed the pre-set threshold, the display remains at the capped scale and the maneuver point is not represented on the display; once the vehicle is close enough that the fit-scale no longer exceeds the threshold, the display uses the calculated scale, and the resulting map view frames both the current location and the maneuver point together. This meets the claimed “adjusting a zoom level to generate a first navigation presentation with a first map view that frames” both graphical objects.
Applying Foo’s known zoom-level (scale) adjustment technique to claim 18 of ‘252 Patent involves nothing more than using a known technique (distance based scale adjustment bounded by a pre-set threshold, as taught by Foo) to improve a similar system (a navigation device that reframes the display to include an upcoming, currently off screen route point once the vehicle comes within a threshold distance of it, as taught by claim 1 of ‘252 Patent) in the same way, yielding the predictable result of a map view that frames both the current location and the upcoming route point. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results”).
Therefore, claim 1 of the instant application is 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, in view of Foo (as in the discussion above). 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15, 17 and 19-22 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-15, 17, 19-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozoe (US 2011/0295499) in view of Foo et al. (US 2006/0074553).
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, adjusting a zoom level to generate a first navigation presentation with 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).
However, while Nozoe generates this combined view by tilting the plan view map image about a tilt axis rather than by changing the map scale (Nozoe at paragraph 0059, stating the transition images have “the same scale as the plan view map image”).
Foo remedies this difference and discloses adjusting a zoom level to generate the required combined framing. Foo teaches that the map scale in the vicinity of the vehicle’s current location is determined “such that the next maneuver… is within a certain display distance (i.e., close enough to display on the screen along with the correct vehicle location…),” and specifically discloses: “One approach to this calculation is to calculate a maximum map scale based on the distance from the current vehicle location to the next maneuver point such that the display can fit both the current location and the maneuver point. If this maximum scale exceeds a pre-set threshold, the scale is reduced to the threshold” see Foo at paragraph 0048. Because the scale required to fit both points is a function of the distance between them, gating the scale adjustment on a pre-set threshold is equivalent to gating it on a corresponding threshold distance between the current location and the maneuver point: when that point is far enough away that the fit-scale would exceed the pre-set threshold, the display remains at the capped scale and the maneuver point is not represented on the display; once the vehicle is close enough that the fit-scale no longer exceeds the threshold, the display uses the calculated scale, and the resulting map view frames both the current location and the maneuver point together. This meets the claimed “adjusting a zoom level to generate a first navigation presentation with a first map view that frames” both graphical objects.
Applying Foo’s known zoom-level (scale) adjustment technique to Nozoe’s threshold distance triggered, dual point framing operation involves nothing more than using a known technique (distance based scale adjustment bounded by a pre-set threshold, as taught by Foo) to improve a similar system (a navigation device that reframes the display to include an upcoming, currently off screen route point once the vehicle comes within a threshold distance of it, as taught by Nozoe) in the same way, yielding the predictable result of a map view that frames both the current location and the upcoming route point. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results”).
Additionally, Nozoe and Foo are both directed to the identical problem: how to bring an upcoming route point that is not currently on screen into a combined view with the vehicle’s current location, at the appropriate moment as the vehicle approaches that point, without unduly burdening or confusing the driver. See Nozoe at ¶¶ [0004]–[0009] (identifying the need to “comprehensively display a route from the current position to a next intersection… without losing recognition of a current position”); Foo at ¶¶ [0020]–[0022] (identifying the same goal of providing “an appropriate level of detail… in various route guidance conditions” as the vehicle nears a maneuver). Nozoe solves this problem by tilting the map image; Foo solves the same problem by adjusting the map’s zoom level (scale). A person of ordinary skill in the art, aware of both known techniques for achieving the same result, would have recognized them as interchangeable alternatives and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in substituting or supplementing Nozoe’s tilt-based reframing with Foo’s scale-based reframing, since both operate on the same underlying plan-view map image and both are triggered by the same distance relationship between the current position and the upcoming route point. This is no more than the “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.”
Regarding claims 2 and 9, 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, Foo teaches the claimed wherein adjusting the zoom level comprises selecting a particular zoom level 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 48 wherein once the vehicle comes within the threshold distance and first-scale no longer exceeds the preset cap, the display transitions from the smaller-area capped scale to the larger-area calculated first scale in order to bring the maneuver point into view together with the current location).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Nozoe and Foo 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 (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. Similarly, as discussed in claim 1 above, Foo teaches that unless the threshold distance is met, the viewpoint does not change).
Regarding claim 22, Foo teaches the claimed wherein adjusting the zoom level to generate the first navigation presentation comprises zooming out to generate the first navigation presentation (paragraph 48: a transition from a smaller area (more zoomed in) scale to a larger area (more zoom out) scale meets the claimed. The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozoe (US 2011/0295499) in view of Foo et al. (US 2006/0074553) and further 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 and Foo because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the user convenience and user convenience (paragraph 138).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozoe (US 2011/0295499) in view of Foo et al. (US 2006/0074553) and further in view of Kornmann et al. (US 8,626,434).
Regarding claim 21, while Nozoe and Foo teaches the claimed as discussed in claim 1 above, wherein Nozoe teaches a change in the scale of a plan-view map image without describing the map as rendered from the viewpoint of a virtual camera,. However, Kornmann remedies this deficiency and teaches wherein adjusting the zoom level comprises increasing a vertical position of a virtual camera for generating the first map view of the first navigation presentation (Fig. 4, claim 1 and col. 6, lines 59-65 teaches “increasing its vertical position – widens the field of view and zooms the display out. Therefore Kornmann expressly teaches that, in a virtual camera rendered vehicle navigation display, increasing the vertical position of the virtual camera is a known way to generate a zoomed out map view.
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 zoom out operation rendered obvious by Nozoe in view of Foo using Kornmann’s virtual camera technique (by increasing the vertical position of virtual camera used to render the map view), rather than or as an addition to adjust a plan view scale factor as in Foo. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date implement Nozoe and Foo’s zoom out to operation, would have looked to Kornmann’s teaching that increasing camera height is a known technique for achieving that same widened, zoom -out field of view, and would have applied to with a reasonable expectation of success, since Kornmann’s camera movement is expressly disclosed as increasing “the visible area within range of the display viewpoint,” which is the same goal Nozoe and Foo already establish a motivation to achieve (bringing a previously out of frame point into view together with the current location). This is no more than combining familiar elements (Nocoe/Foo’s threshold triggered zoom out; Kornman’’s camera height adjustment based on zoom out) according to their known functions to yield a predictable result. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-17. That Kornmann’s camera height adjustment is itself triggered by vehicle velocity rather than by proximity to a route point does not detract from this combination as claim 21 does not recite what triggers the zoom-out (a feature already addressed in claim 1 by Nozoe and Foo), rather how it is implemented once triggered.
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 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
Prosecution Insights