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.
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 § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Van Os et al. (US 2013/0345962).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Van Os teaches a system/method/NTCRM comprising:
one or more processors (Paragraphs 455-456 and 463 teaches processors); and
a computer readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Paragraphs 455-456 and 463 teaches processors executing software stored on memory), causes the processors to perform operations comprising:
displaying a first area of a map on a display of a device using a first map view mode (Fig. 7, and supporting disclosure wherein stage 702 shows a first area of a map showing a first map view mode);
determining that the device has exited from a first environment and has entered a second environment of a different type than the first environment (paragraph 145 teaches wherein the device is determined to have left a first environment and entered a second environment “until the corner has been fully navigated”);
responsive to determining that the device has exited from the first environment and has entered the second environment: displaying a second area of the map that includes at least a portion of the second environment using a second map view mode that is different than the first map view mode (Fig. 7, and supporting disclosure wherein screen 705 shows the viewing mode changes to a different view mode once the determination is made that the device has entered a different area of the route, therefore having left the first environment and entered the second environment as discussed above. This interpretation is commensurate with the instant application’s own description of “sixth scene 812” that “shows the navigation present after the puck has gotten off the exit’s ramp and has reached an urban street … the virtual camera has moved to a lower perspective 3D view”).
As to medium claims 9-16, claim 17 also teaches the same non-transitory computer readable medium having stored instructions to be executed by a processor.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, Van Os teaches the claimed wherein the first environment is one of an urban environment and a non-urban environment, and wherein the second environment is the other of the urban environment and the non-urban environment (Fig. 7, and supporting disclosure wherein screen 705 shows the viewing mode changes to a different view mode once the determination is made that the device has entered a different area of the route, therefore having left the first environment and entered the second environment as discussed above. This interpretation is commensurate with the instant application’s own description of “sixth scene 812” that “shows the navigation present after the puck has gotten off the exit’s ramp and has reached an urban street … the virtual camera has moved to a lower perspective 3D view. The environments appear to be interchangeable as the ability to change modes from 3D to 2D and then 2D to 3D are both supported by Van Os depending on which direction a user is driving, from a urban highway to a non-urban street, or a urban street to a non-urban and vice versa).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, 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 (see Fig. 7, stage 702 where the current location and second locations are displayed together); and the second map view mode displays a set of one or more points determined based on the current location of the device (see Fig. 7, wherein in stage 705, a point in the form of the next maneuver/destination is displayed together based on the current location of the vehicle. Additional “points” in the form of buildings are also displayed in the same viewing mode).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, 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 (see Fig. 7, stage 702 where the current location and second locations are displayed together. The arbitrarily termed “second graphical object” is met by an input/selected destination location/position).
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 (as seen in Fig. 7, the stages are displayed based on the field of view of the virtual camera used to generate the 3D and 2D perspective views).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Van Os teaches the claimed wherein determining that the device has exited from the first environment and has entered the second environment comprises determining that the device has exited a freeway via a freeway ramp that leads to the second environment (as discussed above, and while the maneuver in the example of Fig. 7 is a right turn, paragraph 353 teaches that the maneuvers also includes “freeway off ramp” along with a “right turn, U-turn … etc.”. Therefore, the ability to apply the above changing of view modes would take place once the device has completed a “freeway off ramp” taking and completing the maneuver, much like the completion of a “right turn” as discussed above).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Van Os teaches the claimed further comprising: prior to the device entering the second environment: 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 (as seen in Fig. 7 above, in the first view 702 and second view 705, at least a portion of the previous route is still displayed since the first and the second view mode due to the level of framing/zooming used. The upcoming move is visible in 702 and the just completed/passed move is also visible in 705. This teaching, as discussed above, is illustrated as an example in Fig. 7 as a “right turn”, but paragraph 353 specifically teaches that the maneuvers also includes “freeway off ramp” along with a “right turn, U-turn … etc.”).
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 (see Fig. 7, stage 702 where the current location and second locations are displayed together); and the second map view mode frames, on the display of the device, the current location of the device and a selected second location (see Fig. 7, wherein in stage 705, a point in the form of the next maneuver/destination is displayed together based on the current location of the vehicle. Additional “points” in the form of buildings are also displayed in the same viewing mode).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fyke et al. (US 2009/0182501) teaches a zoom/shape changing view mode that shows a zoomed in portion of a routing based on the current location of the device/vehicle.
Tsunoda et al. (US 4,757,455) teaches a navigation system that changes the mode of the display of the upcoming turn based on the vehicle’s location and having completed a maneuver/turn.
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