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 Van Os et al. (US 2014/0074483).
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 (paragraph 75 teaches that as part of rerouting process, the destination or end location is used to derive a new routing (the re-route). 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).
In an analogous art, Van Os in paragraph 205 clearly teaches that near the end of a navigation presentation, when the vehicle/device is close to the destination, it is possible for the driver (and the device), to drive past the destination and for the system to reroute the device/user back to 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 Van Os that teaches that the next turn could specifically be the said destination or end location. 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).
Therefore, 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 Van Os into the system of Su because said incorporation allows for the benefit of allowing a user to receive directions even if the driver initially reaches the destination but has passed it unintentionally (paragraph 205).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 17, Su and Van Os 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, Van Os in paragraph 205 clearly teaches that near the end of a navigation presentation, when the vehicle/device is close to the destination, it is possible for the driver (and the device), to drive past the destination and for the system to reroute the device/user back to 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 Van Os that teaches that the next turn could specifically be the said destination or end location. 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).
Therefore, 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 Van Os into the system of Su because said incorporation allows for the benefit of allowing a user to receive directions even if the driver initially reaches the destination but has passed it unintentionally (paragraph 205).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 18, Su and Van Os teaches the claimed wherein the second navigation mode maintains the current location of the device and the destination location within the navigation presentation at least until the current location of the device matches the destination location (as discussed in claim 2 above, the proposed combination would guide the user to the destination or end location, requiring the calculation of the current location until the destination location is reached).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Van Os 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 (Van Os in paragraph 205 clearly teaches that near the end of a navigation presentation, when the vehicle/device is close to the destination, it is possible for the driver (and the device), to drive past the destination and for the system to reroute the device/user back to the destination.).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Su 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 (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). The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Su and Van Os 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. Van Os 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 Van Os et al. (US 2014/0074483) and further in view of McGavran et al. (US 2014/0365122).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Su and Van Os 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, Van Os 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 Van Os 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 Van Os et al. (US 2014/0074483) and further in view of Piemonte et al. (US 2013/0321401).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Su and Van Os 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 Van Os because said incorporation allows for the benefit of providing an immersive and interactive 3D representations during navigation (paragraphs 4-8).
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.
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