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
Remarks – Double Patenting
Although it is the position of the examiner that the present scope of the claims defines itself different and an unobvious variation of parent applications 15/274,260 (now US Patent Number 10,739,157), 16/719,453 (now US Patent Number 11,486,724), 17/960,339 (now US Patent Number 12,259,252) in the event the scope of the claims change over the course of patent prosecution, examiner reserves the right to make Double Patenting rejections in the future.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 5/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tertoolen et al. (US 2014/0114574).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozoe (US 2011/0295499) in view of Tertoolen et al. (US 2014/0114574).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Nozoe teaches a system comprising:
one or more processors (paragraph 27); and
a computer readable 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:
presenting, on a display of a device, at least a portion of a route to a destination location on a map (Figs. 3-4, 7A-8C, 10A-10C and 12A-12C displays a portion of a navigated route on the display);
identifying, by the application, a second location on the map to be displayed on a display of the device concurrently with a current location of the device (paragraph 118 teaches determining a second location, an upcoming point of interest, along the route that is to be displayed concurrent with the current location);
determining, by the application, a first set of one or more edges of a target area of the map that includes at least the second location on the map and the current location of the device (Nozoe discloses the first determining step through its tilt/rotation-angle calculations, which define the geometric extent needed to bring next route point I into display region A together with current position P. Nozoe calculates "the tilt angle θ such that the next route point I is located on an inside of the display region A from a nearest side of the display region A by predetermined dots" (¶ [0043]), and, in the second embodiment, first rotates the image "so that the next route point I is located on the up side of the display region A," then tilts it "so that the next route point I is displayed in the display region A" (¶ [0072]; Figs. 8B–8C). Nozoe further shows this target-area extent is a selectable parameter rather than a fixed given: the alternative tilt-axis embodiment of Fig. 7C produces a wider target area than Fig. 7B (¶¶ [0062]–[0063]). Each of these calculations fixes the boundary, “the edges”, of the map area, bounded by P and I, that must be framed by display region A. Accordingly, the reference discloses determining a first set of one or more edges for each of the transition process map images generated);
However, while Nozoe teaches the changing of the tilting operation of the viewable map area, fails to explicitly teach the aspect, however, Tertoolen teaches the claimed “determining, by the application, a zoom level that causes the first set of one or more edges to correspond respectively to a second set of one or more edges of a portion of the map that is to be displayed on the display of the device (TomTom discloses the second determining step through its bounding-rectangle-to-display-fit computation: "[a] smallest rectangle bounding all of the points of the remainder of the route is calculated... A map scale is then determined to ensure that this bounding rectangle just fits into the visible map display area 10" (¶ [0158] and [0163]); a technique also separately claimed in the pre-grant publication: "determining a map scale to result in the smallest square or rectangle just fitting into the visible map display area" (see claim 5 of Tertoolen). This computation directly ties the zoom level to bringing the target area's edges into correspondence with the display's edges); and
displaying the portion of the map on the display of the device at the zoom level (¶ [0158] and [0163] as discussed above displays the portion of the map at the determined “map scale”).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Nozoe's edge determining step with Tertoolen's zoom level determining step because both are directed to the identical two step problem: the first being able to identify the map area (edges) that must be shown, then adjusting the map presentation so that area is framed within the display; and Tertoolen's zoom based technique for the second step is a known, interchangeable alternative to Nozoe's own tilt based technique for achieving the same framing result. Substituting Tertoolen's known scale to fit computation for Nozoe's tilt/rotation based framing, while retaining Nozoe's own edge/target-area determination (P and I) as the input to that computation, is no more than the "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results," KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007), or the straightforward "combination of familiar elements according to known methods" to "yield predictable results," id. at 417: namely, a displayed map view whose edges correspond to the edges of a target area already known to contain both the current location and the second location.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Nozoe teaches the operations further comprising selecting the second location on the map responsive to determining that the second location is to be framed with the current location of the device within a navigation presentation (paragraphs 40-44 and 118 and flowchart in Fig. 6, wherein when the device is within a “predetermined distance” to the next point of interest, the system determines an “execution condition” to perform switching from a first screen G11 to a second screen G12 (see Figs) thereby “selecting” the second location on the map responsive to determining it should be framed).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Nozoe teaches the operations further comprising:
defining, by the application, a virtual camera that views the device (paragraphs 40-44 teaches a view of the camera that is different from a top down view, such as a plan view, which meets a viewpoint position, orientation and orthographic projection parameters);
determining, by the application, an orientation of the virtual camera to ensure that a field of view of the camera includes the current location of the device and the second location (paragraphs 40-44 shows the plan view includes both current and second location on the display region R);
determining, by the application, the first set of one or more edges of the target area of the map based on the field of view of the camera (Therefore, in setting the target display area A, the display area A determines a bounding box defining the portion of the map to be displayed when an upcoming point of interest I is approachingNozoe discloses the first determining step through its tilt/rotation-angle calculations, which define the geometric extent needed to bring next route point I into display region A together with current position P. Nozoe calculates "the tilt angle θ such that the next route point I is located on an inside of the display region A from a nearest side of the display region A by predetermined dots" (¶ [0043]), and, in the second embodiment, first rotates the image "so that the next route point I is located on the up side of the display region A," then tilts it "so that the next route point I is displayed in the display region A" (¶ [0072]; Figs. 8B–8C). Nozoe further shows this target-area extent is a selectable parameter rather than a fixed given: the alternative tilt-axis embodiment of Fig. 7C produces a wider target area than Fig. 7B (¶¶ [0062]–[0063]). Each of these calculations fixes the boundary, “the edges”, of the map area, bounded by P and I, that must be framed by display region A. Accordingly, the reference discloses determining a first set of one or more edges for each of the transition process map images generated. Accordingly, the reference discloses determining a first set of one or more edges for each of the transition process map images generated); and
presenting, by the application, the current location of the device on the map and the second location from a perspective of the virtual camera (paragraphs 40-44 shows the plan view includes both current and second location on the display region R);.
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Nozoe teaches the claimed wherein: the virtual camera continually views the current location of the device as the device traverses a route (paragraphs 40-44 and 115 teaches the system is set to always show the current location and a predetermined number of route point during the trip); and
the application presents the route on the display of the device from the perspective of the virtual camera (Figs. 4, 7B, 7C and 8C at least shows an example of how the route is displayed in plan view, which as discussed above, meets the parameters for a virtual camera view).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Nozoe teaches the operations further comprising:
identifying, by the application, a third location on the map to be displayed on the display of the device concurrently with the current location of the device and the second location (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);
wherein the target area is determined such that the target area includes the first location, the second location, and the current location of the device (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. Also see Figs. 10A-10C and 12A-12C wherein multiple upcoming points of interest are concurrently displayed with the current location and the second location as discussed above).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, the system of claim 15, wherein identifying the second location on the map comprises selecting the second location in response to determining that the second location corresponds to a point of interest to be framed (paragraphs 40-44 and 118 and flowchart in Fig. 6, wherein when the device is within a “predetermined distance” to the next point of interest, the system determines an “execution condition” to perform switching from a first screen G11 to a second screen G12 (see Figs) thereby “selecting” the second location on the map responsive to determining it should be framed).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, wherein the first set of one or more edges includes at least two edges (as discussed in claim 1 above, in setting the target display area A, the display area A determines a bounding box defining the portion of the map to be displayed when an upcoming point of interest I is approaching. A bounding box (display area A) defines one or more edges (e.g. top, bottom, left and right boundaries) of a target display area A. Accordingly, the reference discloses determining a first set of one or more edges for each of the transition process map images generated. Therefore, at least two edges are included).
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
Prosecution Insights