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 Remarks
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 with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-17 and 19-23 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.
Examiner also makes note that claims 19-20 is listed as new but did exist as initially filed but appears to have been dropped from the filing. Examiner has treated them as new claims, however, applicants are urged to renumber them to correct claim numbers as new claims (21-25) instead of the presently filed as new claims (19-23).
35 USC § 101
Non-transitory computer readable medium appears to be commensurate with 35 USC 101 for having the medium be restricted to non-transitory type.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 6-7, 9, 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sempuku et al. (US 2012/0323487) in view of Uotani (US 2005/0165547).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Sempuku teaches a system/method/NTCRM comprising:
displaying a first area of a map on a display of a device using a first map view mode, the first area of the map including at least a portion of a non-urban road that the device is traversing (Sempuku discloses a navigation device that determines the type of road currently being traveled (expressway, public road, national road, prefectural road, minor street) from GPS log data and continuously changes the map's drawing pattern as the vehicle transitions between road types. ¶[0110], [0118]: “Embodiment 6 is a case of changing a range of gradation change of a connecting road according to the size (road type, the number of lanes, road width) of the road currently under travel… Case where, for instance, the vehicle leaves an expressway travel to go to a public road.” Sempuku displays the map using an “expressway travel map drawing pattern” while the vehicle travels the expressway (¶[0119]). Uotani, as discussed further below, also establishes that a limited-access/expressway-type road corresponds to the art-recognized “suburban” (i.e., non-urban) area classification, as distinct from the “urban area” classification used for denser public-road networks. See abstract: “A route searching section… determines whether the area of the current position is an urban area or a suburban area.” ¶¶[0055]–[0056]: contrasting “suburban area” (fewer signals, less congestion, faster vehicle pace — consistent with an expressway) with “urban area” (more signals, more congestion, slower pace). In combination, Sempuku's expressway map drawing pattern is the claimed first map view mode displaying a non-urban road);
determining that the device has traversed away from the non-urban road and has traversed onto an urban road (Sempuku ¶[0119]: “During the traveling on the expressway, when the vehicle approaches an interchange and a gradual reduction in the travel speed is detected, and it is thereby determined that the vehicle started traveling on an exit road…”. Which means that Sempuku determines, from the vehicle's own detected driving behavior, that it has left the expressway (non-urban road) and transitioned onto the connecting public road (urban road, per Uotani's terminology and per Sempuku's own ¶[0002] identification of dense “inner city” road networks as the problem motivating the invention));
responsive to determining that the device has traversed away from the non-urban road and has traversed onto the urban road: displaying a second area of the map, that includes at least a portion of the urban road, using a second map view mode that is different than the first map view mode (Sempuku ¶[0119]: “During the time required for the transition from the expressway to the public road, the map drawing pattern is continuously changed from an ‘expressway travel map drawing pattern’ to a ‘public road travel map drawing pattern.’” Sempuku's claim 5 also independently claims this same transition-triggered change: “wherein when a type of a travel road changes, a range of changing the gradation is gradually changed within a predetermined time or distance.” The “public road travel map drawing pattern” is a second, different map view mode than the “expressway travel map drawing pattern,” displayed responsive to the determined road-type transition, over an area that includes the public (urban) road now being traveled.).
As discussed above, Sempuku fails to teach the art-recognized “urban”/ “non-urban” nomenclature, Uotani, as discussed above, also establishes that a limited-access/expressway-type road corresponds to the art-recognized “suburban” (i.e., non-urban) area classification, as distinct from the “urban area” classification used for denser public-road networks. See abstract: “A route searching section… determines whether the area of the current position is an urban area or a suburban area.” ¶¶[0055]–[0056]: contrasting “suburban area” (fewer signals, less congestion, faster vehicle pace — consistent with an expressway) with “urban area” (more signals, more congestion, slower pace). In combination, Sempuku's expressway map drawing pattern is the claimed first map view mode displaying a non-urban road.
A person of ordinary skill would have understood Sempuku's expressway-to-public-road transition as an instance of Uotani's urban/suburban classification, and labeling Sempuku's two map drawing patterns as corresponding to a non-urban mode and an urban mode is nothing more than applying a known, art-recognized naming/classification convention (Uotani) to an already-disclosed road-type-triggered display change (Sempuku) - a predictable application of a known technique yielding no more than the predictable result each reference already shows in isolation. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 420 (2007). Neither reference criticizes, discredits, or discourages classifying road context by urban/non-urban terms; to the contrary, Uotani affirmatively uses that exact classification for navigation-system behavior keyed to the current road/area. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The combination relies only on Uotani's urban/suburban classification teaching, not bodily incorporation of its route-search-range or time-restriction-road features. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
As to the generic recitation in claims 9, 11-16 and 17 of “one or more processors and a computer readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the processors to perform operations comprising”. Sempuku discloses a navigation device configured to acquire GPS log data, determine the current road type, and control the display to change the map drawing pattern accordingly (¶0110,0118-0119), which a person or ordinary skill in the art would have understood to be implemented via one or more processors executing instructions stored on a computer readable medium, consistent with the conventional, well known architecture of navigation devices generally. Examiner further takes Official Notice that implement a navigation device’s road-determination and map display mode switching functionality via one ore more processors executing instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium was well known, routine, and conventional computer implementation as of the effective filing date, such that reciting this generic hardware architecture adds no patentable weight to claims 9 and 17 beyond what Sempuku in view of Uotani already teaches for claim 1.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Sempuku teaches the claimed wherein determining that the device has traversed away from the non-urban road and has traversed onto the urban road comprises determining that the device has traversed a freeway off ramp exit onto the urban road (Sempuku ¶[0119]: “During the traveling on the expressway, when the vehicle approaches an interchange and a gradual reduction in the travel speed is detected, and it is thereby determined that the vehicle started traveling on an exit road…” This is a determination that the device has traversed a freeway (expressway) off ramp exit onto the urban (public) road, as claimed).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Sempuku teaches the claimed further comprising: prior to the device traversing away from the non-urban road and traversing onto the urban road: displaying, on the display of the device, at least a first portion of the freeway using the second map view mode; and displaying at least a portion of the freeway ramp using the first map view mode (Sempuku ¶[0119]: “During the time required for the transition from the expressway to the public road, the map drawing pattern is continuously changed from an ‘expressway travel map drawing pattern’ to a ‘public road travel map drawing pattern.’” Sempuku's own claim 5: “wherein when a type of a travel road changes, a range of changing the gradation is gradually changed within a predetermined time or distance.” Because the gradation change occurs gradually and continuously over a predetermined time or distance spanning the transition, rather than instantaneously at the moment of transition, the display necessarily shows, immediately prior to the device traversing onto the urban road, a portion of the freeway (non-urban road) partially rendered in the (incoming) second/urban map view mode, and a portion of the freeway off ramp exit still partially rendered in the (outgoing) first/non-urban map view mode, during the predetermined gradation-change window).
Claims 3-5, 8, 11-13, 16 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sempuku et al. (US 2012/0323487) in view of Uotani (US 2005/0165547) in view of Van Os et al. (US 2013/0345962).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the proposed combination of Sempuku and Uotani fails to teach, however, in an analogous art, Van Os teaches the claimed wherein: the first map view mode frames, on the display of the device, a current location of the device and a selected second location; and the second map view mode displays a set of one or more points determined based on the current location of the device (Van Os discloses a “Route Overview Mode” that frames both the device's current location and a selected second (destination) location together, distinct from its turn-by-turn navigation display, which instead centers on the device's current location alone. ¶[0011]: “A user can seamlessly switch between the full-screen, turn-by-turn presentation that displays a view optimized for turn-by-turn directions; and an overview presentation that displays a view of the remaining route …” ¶[0185]: “The navigation application has displayed an overview map 1620… location indicator pin 1626, end pin 1628 …” ¶[0186]: “The location indicator pin 1626 and the end pin 1628 show the current location of the device and the final destination of the navigation route, respectively.” In the turn-by-turn presentation, by contrast, the display centers on and tracks only the device's current location as it travels (¶[0180]: the virtual camera “follows the location of the device… pointing down and in the direction the device is moving”), i.e., a set of points determined based on the current location of the device, without necessarily maintaining the destination within the displayed area).
A person of ordinary skill in the navigation-application art would have recognized that Van Os's framing-mode/tracking-mode display mechanics, including its graphical current-location and destination objects, its virtual-camera-driven field-of-view rendering, its zoom-level differences, and its camera-orientation differences, are a known, interchangeable means of implementing distinct “map view modes” of the kind already disclosed by Sempuku (expressway-mode versus public-road-mode) and would have applied Van Os's specific UI implementation details to Sempuku's road-type-triggered mode switch as the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield no more than the predictable result of a navigation display that changes its framing, zoom, and camera orientation when the display mode changes. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. All three references are drawn from the identical field of vehicle/mobile navigation-application map display, further supporting a reasonable expectation of successful combination. The combination relies on Van Os's teaching of the framing/tracking display paradigm, graphical location objects, virtual camera field-of-view rendering, and zoom/orientation adjustment, not on bodily incorporation of Van Os's unrelated routing, search, or sign-generation features. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Van Os teaches the claimed wherein the first map view mode frames (a) a first graphical object representing a current location of the device and (b) a second graphical object representing the selected location (Van Os ¶[0186]: “The location indicator pin 1626 and the end pin 1628 show the current location of the device and the final destination of the navigation route, respectively.” The location indicator pin 1626 is the first graphical object representing the current location of the device, and the end pin 1628 is the second graphical object representing the selected (destination) location, both framed together in the overview display. See also ¶[0189] (same teaching with respect to pins 1726/1728 in the 3D overview embodiment of Fig. 17)). The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Van Os teaches the claimed wherein the set of one or more points on the map is determined by generating a virtual camera pointed at the device and having a predetermined orientation relative to the device, and determining the set of points based on a field of view of the virtual camera (Van Os ¶[0199]: “Based on a particular location and orientation from which the map will be rendered (i.e., the point in 3D space from which the user ‘views’ the map), the virtual camera identifies a field of view to actually send to the tile provider 1820.” During turn-by-turn tracking, the virtual camera is positioned with a predetermined orientation relative to the device/puck see ¶[0122]: “the virtual camera moves and rotates into its eventual location behind the navigation location indicator (i.e., the puck)”, and the displayed set of points (map tiles/geometry) is determined from that camera's field of view, consistent with the claimed limitation). The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Van Os teaches the claimed wherein: the first map view mode displays a set of one or more points determined based on a current location of the device; and the second map view mode frames, on the display of the device, the current location of the device and a selected second location (This is the converse ordering of the limitation addressed above with respect to claims 3 and 11, and Van Os discloses both orderings: the application allows the user to switch from the turn-by-turn, current-location-tracking presentation (¶[0180]) to the overview presentation that frames both the current-location pin and the destination end pin together (¶¶[0011], [0185]–[0186]), and vice versa, “seamlessly” at any time (¶[0011]: “a user can seamlessly switch between the full-screen, turn-by-turn presentation… and an overview presentation…”; ¶[0190]: “the overview mode can be activated at any time while navigating”). Depending on which of Sempuku's two map drawing patterns is mapped to the claimed “first” versus “second” map view mode, Van Os's teaching of both orderings of the framing/tracking display behavior reads on claims 8 and 16 as well as on claims 3 and 11). The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 19, Van Os teaches the claimed wherein the first map view mode comprises one of a framing mode and a tracking mode and the second map view mode comprises the other of the framing mode and the tracking mode (Van Os ¶[0011]: “one of the controls in the top bar is an overview button. By selecting this button at any time during the navigation, a user can seamlessly switch between the full-screen, turn-by-turn presentation that displays a view optimized for turn-by-turn directions; and an overview presentation that displays a view of the remaining route that better accommodates browsing.” The turn-by-turn presentation is a tracking mode (¶[0180]: virtual camera “follows the location of the device”); the overview presentation is a framing mode (¶¶[0185]–[0186]: frames both the current location pin and the destination end pin). As applied to Sempuku's two map drawing patterns (expressway/non-urban and public-road/urban), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to characterize one of Sempuku's two modes as a framing mode and the other as a tracking mode, consistent with Van Os's own use of exactly this framing/tracking dichotomy for a navigation application's two principal map view modes.
Regarding claim 20, Van Os teaches the claimed wherein the framing mode allows a puck, representing the device, to rotate independently of the map and wherein the tracking mode does not allow the puck to rotate independently of the map (Van Os refers to the navigation location indicator representing the device as “the puck” (¶[0122]: “the virtual camera moves and rotates into its eventual location behind the navigation location indicator (i.e., the puck)”). In Van Os's tracking (turn-by-turn) mode, the puck does not rotate independently of the map; rather, “the camera revolves around the location identifier so that the location identifier appears to be a fixed point while the map revolves around it” (¶[0182]), i.e., the puck remains visually fixed while the map itself orients around it, such that the puck and the map move together rather than the puck rotating independently. In the framing (overview) mode, by contrast, Van Os allows the user to directly manipulate the map independently of the device's own heading (¶[0186]: “the application allows a user to move the map around, zoom in and out, and otherwise focus on different parts of the overview map”), consistent with the location-indicator pin's orientation/heading being decoupled from, i.e., able to rotate independently of, the map's own orientation in that mode. The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 21, Van Os teaches the claimed wherein the framing mode maintains both a location of the device and at least one other location within a displayed area of the map as the device traverses a route, wherein the tracking mode maintains the location of the device within the map without maintaining other locations within the displayed area of the map as the device traverses the route (As discussed above with respect to claims 3, 11 and 19, Van Os's overview (framing) mode maintains both the location indicator pin 1626 (current device location) and the end pin 1628 (destination, i.e., “at least one other location”) within the displayed overview map as the device travels its route (¶¶[0185]–[0186]). Van Os's turn-by-turn (tracking) mode, by contrast, maintains only the device's own current location within the display, with the virtual camera continuously following the device (¶[0180]: “the default behavior for the virtual camera is to follow the location of the device…”) without necessarily maintaining the destination or other locations within the displayed area).
Regarding claim 22, Van Os teaches the claimed wherein the first map view mode and the second map view mode differ with respect to a zoom level (Van Os ¶[0113]: “the overview control 275 is for showing the entire route in the map view by adjusting the zoom level of the displayed map if adjusting the zoom level is necessary to show the entire route.” The overview mode's zoom level (adjusted as necessary to fit the entire route, including the destination) necessarily differs from the turn-by-turn mode's zoom level (which is zoomed in on the device's immediate surroundings). See also ¶[0014]: “the gestural input is a two-finger pinching/spreading operation to adjust the zoom level[, which] inherently adjusts the position and rotation of the camera with respect to the route direction, and thereby changes the 2D/3D perspective view.”)
Regarding claim 23, Van Os teaches the claimed wherein the first map view mode and the second map view mode differ with respect to an orientation of a virtual camera that is used to determine a display of the respective areas of the map (Van Os ¶[0119]: when transitioning between map view modes, “the virtual camera performs a combination of translation, zoom, and rotation operations… the virtual camera moves in an arc and rotates upward as the camera moves downward along the arc.” ¶[0122]: the virtual camera “moves and rotates into its eventual location behind the navigation location indicator (i.e., the puck),” i.e., a different, predetermined orientation relative to the device than in the other map view mode. Because, as discussed above (claim 5/13), the displayed area of the map in each mode is determined from the virtual camera's field of view (¶[0199]), and the virtual camera's orientation differs between Van Os's two principal map view modes, the first and second map view modes differ with respect to virtual camera orientation, as claimed).
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
