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 and 17/960,339 no US Patent 12,259,252, 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.
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 of this title, 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, 5-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US 2012/0303264) in view of Su et al. (US 2012/0303268) hereinafter referred to as “Su ‘268”.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Su teaches a system comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 22 and 26, processor 110); and
a computer readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (paragraphs 22-24 teaches memory storing software for the system which is executed to perform its functions), causes the processors to perform operations comprising:
presenting, on a display of a device, a route to a destination location using a first navigation mode in which (1) a current location of the device along the route and (2) a first set of one or more points on a map that are determined based on the current location of the device, are displayed (Figs. 3a-3b teaches entering a destination address, which results in the live routing including presenting the current location as well as the location of one or more points on a map (as in Figs. 8a-8b, 10a-10b and 12a-12b));
while presenting the route: determining, based on the current location of the device, that the device has passed the destination location (Fig. 9 in step 910 determines that the device is not on a predetermined route between a start location and an end location. However, while it is not discussed, it is known that a device passing a destination location would be equivalent to passing a turn as well. Therefore, Su isn’t explicit in its teaching of passing a “destination location” per se);
responsive to determining that the device has passed the destination location: presenting, on the display of the device, the current location of the device and the destination location using a second navigation mode that maintains the current location of the device and the destination location within a navigation presentation (Su partially teaches this limitation in paragraphs 44, 75 and 77, wherein as part of rerouting process, the destination or end location is used to derive a new routing (the re-route). Paragraph 44 has support for continuous updating of the current location and the next moves (as a list) as a device continually moves. The current location and the “end location of the route can be included in the displayed or accessible predetermined list of directions”. Once again, while the next direction is usually displayed on the navigation presentation, it isn’t explicit to the next direction being the end/destination location per se).
Therefore, Su does not explicitly teach the limitation as a whole of “presenting, on the display of the device, the current location of the device and the destination using a second navigation mode that maintains both (a) the current location of the device and (b) the destination location within the navigation presentation until the destination location is reached”.
In an analogous art, Su ‘268, is directed to the same map navigation tool and teaches this feature. Su ‘268 discloses “check[ing] whether the current location is past the end location, where the determination that the destination icon is to be displayed depends on the current location being past the end location’, i.e., responsive to determining that the device has passed the destination, the tool displays a destination icon “indicating the end location of the given route and indicating direction from the current location towards the end location” (see also claim 1 of SU ‘268). This therefore shows that the current location and the destination location are both continually reflected and maintained together within the same ongoing navigation presentation as the device travels. Su ‘268 also teaches that once the current location is near or past the end location, the destination indicator additionally alerts the user, e.g., in Figs. 11b and 11d, with an icon 1187/1188 to alert the user they have travelled past the destination.
Therefore, in the proposed combination while Su teaches the rerouting a device back to the destination or end location when the user is off the initial route, it is Su ‘268 that teaches that the next turn could specifically be the said destination or end location and that the navigation guidance display continually presents the two until destination is reached. Therefore, in combining the two, the navigation presentation of Su would be modified to allow the reroute back to the destination or end location on the display (as in Figs. 12a and 12b), which would then frame the current position and the destination/end location on the same screen, when the driver drives past the destination (as taught in Su) and until the destination location is reached.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the re-routing/off-route detection framework of Su with the destination icon display technique of Su ‘268. Both references are directed to the identical map navigation tool architecture and disclose complementary features of unified navigation system. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that incorporating Su’ 268’s destination orientation display mode, expressly triggered by determining the device has passed the destination, and concurrently reflecting both current location and destination location as the device travels back toward it, into Su’s re-routing frame work would predictably provide the user with persistent visual guidance back to the destination after driving past it. This combination of known elements according to known methods yields no more than the predictable result of a display that maintains both the current location and the destination location until the destination is reached. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 17, Su and Su ‘268 teaches the claimed wherein the second navigation mode maintains the current location of the device and the destination location within the navigation presentation regardless of a direction of travel or direction of a virtual camera corresponding to the navigation presentation (Su: Fig. 9 in step 910 determines that the device is not on a predetermined route between a start location and an end location. However, while it is not discussed, it is known that a device passing a destination location would be equivalent to passing a turn as well. Therefore, Su isn’t explicit in its teaching of passing a “destination location” per se).
In an analogous art, Su ‘268 discloses “check[ing] whether the current location is past the end location, where the determination that the destination icon is to be displayed depends on the current location being past the end location’, i.e., responsive to determining that the device has passed the destination, the tool displays a destination icon “indicating the end location of the given route and indicating direction from the current location towards the end location” (see also claim 1 of SU ‘268). This therefore shows that the current location and the destination location are both continually reflected and maintained together within the same ongoing navigation presentation as the device travels. Su ‘268 also teaches that once the current location is near or past the end location, the destination indicator additionally alerts the user, e.g., in Figs. 11b and 11d, with an icon 1187/1188 to alert the user they have travelled past the destination.
The motivation as discussed in claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Su ‘268 teaches the claimed wherein determining that the device has passed the destination location comprises determining, based on the current location of the device, that the device passed by the destination location while moving along a road on the route that included the destination location (Su ‘268 discloses “check[ing] whether the current location is past the end location, where the determination that the destination icon is to be displayed depends on the current location being past the end location’, i.e., responsive to determining that the device has passed the destination, the tool displays a destination icon “indicating the end location of the given route and indicating direction from the current location towards the end location” (see also claim 1 of SU ‘268). This therefore shows that the current location and the destination location are both continually reflected and maintained together within the same ongoing navigation presentation as the device travels. Su ‘268 also teaches that once the current location is near or past the end location, the destination indicator additionally alerts the user, e.g., in Figs. 11b and 11d, with an icon 1187/1188 to alert the user they have travelled past the destination.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Su and Su ‘268 teaches the claimed wherein determining that the device has passed the destination location comprises determining, based on the current location of the device, that the device missed a maneuver along the route toward the destination location (Su: examiner makes the note here that the claim language of “device has passed the destination location” has become more vague in a sense that “passing the destination location” would no longer appear to be passing the location in a direct path sense. Therefore, Su teaches the claimed in Figs. 12a-12b and Fig. 9 wherein the device is determined to be off path if they drive off the navigated route).
Additionally, if the interpretation to be given to the “missed a maneuver” is a stopping maneuver, Su ‘268 as discussed in claim 1 above teaches driving past the destination location without stopping maneuver. The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Su and Su ‘268 teaches wherein presenting the current location of the device and the destination location using the second navigation mode further comprises displaying a first graphical indicator representing the current location of the device and a second graphical indicator representing the destination location, wherein displaying a first graphical indicator representing the current location of the device and a second graphical indicator representing the destination location further comprises displaying the first graphical indicator representing the current location of the device substantially in a center of the display of the device (Su: Figs. 8a-8b, 10a-10b and 12a-12b teaches wherein the current location and the next navigational instruction are presented with graphical indicators 810, 825, etc. and next navigational instructions “2”, “3”, etc., while the current location is substantially in the center of the display area. Su ‘268 as discussed in claim 1 above is relied upon to teach that the next navigational instruction would be the destination or end location/address).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US 2012/0303264) in view of Su et al. (US 2012/0303268) hereinafter referred to as “Su ‘268” and further in view of McGavran et al. (US 2014/0365122).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Su and Su ‘268 fails to teaches the claimed, however, McGavran teaches wherein the second navigation mode maintains the current location of the device and the destination location within the navigation presentation at least by zooming out as needed to maintain the destination location within the navigation presentation (paragraphs 54 and 155).
Once again, Su ‘268 is also referred to here to teach that the next navigation instruction in McGavran is the destination or end location/address.
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 McGavran into the proposed combination of Su and Su ‘268 because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the guidance by allowing the user to peek ahead and become aware of the upcoming navigating instructions/directions (paragraphs 2-4).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US 2012/0303264) in view of Su et al. (US 2012/0303268) hereinafter referred to as “Su ‘268” and further in view of Piemonte et al. (US 2013/0321401).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Su and Su ‘268 fails to teaches the claimed, however, Piemonte teaches wherein a first area that surrounds the current location of the device is determined by defining a virtual camera that views the device and has a first coordinate system having a constant angular offset relative to a second coordinate system of the device, and determining a field of view of the virtual camera (paragraph 642 teaches a coordinate system of a virtual camera used to generate a virtual view of the map. The tilt, pan and roll angles are stored and used to generated the virtual view. Fig. 3 shows a first view wherein the first coordinate system is equivalent to the GPS location/coordinate system. The tilt angles as illustrated in 301 and 302 meets the claimed constant angular offset used to alter the field of view of the map with reference to the current GPS position’s plan/top-down 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 teachings of Piemonte into the proposed combination of Su and Su ‘268 because said incorporation allows for the benefit of providing an immersive and interactive 3D representations during navigation (paragraphs 4-8).
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