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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/18/26 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 3/30/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 do 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 12-16 and 19-22 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.
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 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 13-13, 15-16 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (US 2013/0103313) in view of Mauderer (US 20080027632).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Moore teaches a system comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 12 and paragraphs 77-78, processor 1218); and
a computer readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Fig. 12 and paragraphs 77-78, CRM 1201 for storing software for the system which is executed by the processor 1218 to perform its functions), causes the processors to perform operations comprising:
presenting, by a navigation application executing on a device, a navigation presentation including a route being traversed by the device (Figs. 1-9 shows a route being traversed);
determining, by the navigation application, a first posted speed limit corresponding to a segment of the route currently being traversed by the device (paragraphs 8 and 40-42 teaches determining automatically the current speed limit for the section of the route being displayed);
While Moore teaches the above navigation architecture, fails to explicitly teach, however, Mauderer teaches the claimed:
determining, by the navigation application, an upcoming point of interest for displaying with the segment of the route based on the first posted speed limit (paragraphs 39-45 teaches the claimed “Then navigation system 300 may determine whether the vehicle is within a pre-selected distance from the point of interest before displaying the point of interest (Act 720). The distance may be measured by the location subsystem. The pre-selected distance or range may be preprogrammed or may be selected by the user. Alternatively, the pre-selected distance may vary depending upon the speed of the vehicle and may be calculated to provide the driver with sufficient warning of the approaching point of interest (Acts 704, 710, 718 and 820 – route guidance/subsequent trip process); and
displaying, by the navigation application, the segment of the route with the upcoming point of interest that has been determined based on the first posted speed limit (paragraphs 39-45 teaches the claimed wherein “during a subsequent trip, when the vehicle approaches the new point of interest, the navigation system alerts the driver of the new point of interest,” displayed concurrently with the ongoing map/route presentation (Act 710, map and vehicle icon displayed during the trip)).
Indeed, the instant application’s own specification discloses this same two-step, speed-derived determination, i.e. - selecting an upcoming point along the route based on a distance that scales with the posted speed limit (paragraphs 0015-0016 and paragraphs 0087-0090), confirming that deriving an upcoming point of interest from posted speed limit via an intermediate distance calculation, as Mauderer and Moore teach in combination, is not an inventive leap but the very same mechanism itself relies on for support.
Moore and Harman Becker are analogous art, both directed to vehicle navigation systems that dynamically vary what is displayed based on real-time driving context, and a person of ordinary skill implementing Moore's speed/speed-limit-aware display would have looked to Harman Becker's speed-dependent POI-approach-alerting mechanism as a known technique for surfacing distance-relevant points during navigation. Harman Becker ties its distance threshold to “the speed of the vehicle” rather than posted speed limit, but Moore already establishes that actual speed and posted speed limit are known, interchangeable inputs for the identical class of automatic display determination (“…the user's current speed, the current speed limit, the distance to the next turn, and/or the distance to POIs”). Substituting one known speed-type input (posted speed limit) for another (actual vehicle speed) within Harman Becker's distance calculation is a predictable substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 420 (2007).
Methodology of claim 1 is implemented by the system and similarly claim 1 already includes the medium as recited in claim 15.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Mauderer teaches the claimed further comprising: determining, by the navigation application, a second posted speed limit corresponding to a second segment of the route being traversed by the device; determining, by the navigation application, a second upcoming point of interest displaying the second segment of the route based on the second posted speed limit; and displaying, by the navigation application, the second segment of the route with the upcoming point of interest that has been determined based on the second posted speed limit (Mauderer: paragraphs 39-45 teaches the claimed wherein “during a subsequent trip, when the vehicle approaches the new point of interest, the navigation system alerts the driver of the new point of interest,” displayed concurrently with the ongoing map/route presentation (Act 710, map and vehicle icon displayed during the trip). paragraphs 39-45 teaches the claimed wherein “during a subsequent trip, when the vehicle approaches the new point of interest, the navigation system alerts the driver of the new point of interest,” displayed concurrently with the ongoing map/route presentation (Act 710, map and vehicle icon displayed during the trip)).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Moore teaches the claimed wherein displaying the segment of the route at the upcoming point of interest that has been determined based on the first posted speed limit further comprises: framing, in a display of the device, a current location of the device and the upcoming point of interest (Paragraph 42 also teaches “However, as the user approaches a POI (e.g., a rest area along the highway), the map may gradually zoom in to show the user precisely where the POI is located” therefore POI is identified and framed in the display of the device. And as discussed above Mauderer teaches the aspect of the speed limit being utilized in determining an upcoming point of interest).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Mauderer teaches the claimed comprising: determining, by the navigation application, a physical characteristic of the segment of the route currently being traversed by the device; and identifying the upcoming point of interest based on the physical characteristic of the segment of the route currently being traversed by the device (Mauderer: paragraphs 39-45 teaches the claimed wherein “during a subsequent trip, when the vehicle approaches the new point of interest, the navigation system alerts the driver of the new point of interest,” displayed concurrently with the ongoing map/route presentation (Act 710, map and vehicle icon displayed during the trip). paragraphs 39-45 teaches the claimed wherein “during a subsequent trip, when the vehicle approaches the new point of interest, the navigation system alerts the driver of the new point of interest,” displayed concurrently with the ongoing map/route presentation (Act 710, map and vehicle icon displayed during the trip)). The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 21, Mauderer teaches the claimed wherein determining the upcoming point of interest based on the first posted speed limit comprises: selecting a particular distance from a current position of the device based on the first posted speed limit and selecting the upcoming point of interest based in part on the upcoming point of interest being within the particular distance from current position of the device (see paragraphs 39-45 in the discussion above with reference to a selection of a “pre-selected distance” from the present location. Paragraphs 44-45 specifically states “determine when the driver is within a predetermined range or distance of the point of interest… The position of the vehicle may be continuously monitored during travel.”). The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 22, Mauderer teaches the claimed wherein displaying the segment of the route with the upcoming point of interest comprises: framing both a first interface element representing a current position of the device and a second interface element representing the upcoming point of interest (paragraphs 39-40: “the map and icon of the vehicle may be displayed (Act 710) during the trip” (first interface element, current position); and “The navigation system 300 may display the point of interest when the vehicle is within range (Act 722) … implicitly indicate the position of the point of interest by positioning the icon or symbol at the correct place in a digital map … [or] expressly indicate the point of interest by announcing or displaying the actual distance between he point of interest and the vehicle” (second interface element, the upcoming ROI, shown concurrently with the vehicle icon on the same map). The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (US 2013/0103313) in view of Mauderer (US 20080027632) and further in view of Hirose (US 2005/0099323).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Moore and Mauderer teaches the claimed as discussed in claims 1 and 8 above, however fails to teach, but Hirose teaches wherein the upcoming points of interest includes a location corresponding to a traffic incident (Figs. 11-12 and paragraph 131 teaches wherein when traffic incidents are detected along a route, the traffic incident “C” and the current location “A” are frame together from a transition of Fig. 11 to Fig. 12).
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 Hirose into the system of Moore and Mauderer because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the user convenience and user convenience (paragraph 138).
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