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 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.
35 USC § 101
Claims 8-15 appear to commensurate with 101 with reference to non-transitory computer readable medium requirements.
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 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Moore et al. (US 2013/0103313).
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);
determining, by the navigation application, a first zoom level for displaying the segment of the route based on the first posted speed limit (paragraphs 40-42 teaches the claimed wherein a zoom level for displaying the current routed location is based on the speed limit, and the map may be zoomed in or zoomed out based on the speed limit); and displaying, by the navigation application, the segment of the route at the first zoom level that has been determined based on the first posted speed limit (paragraphs 40-42 teaches the claimed wherein a zoom level for displaying the current routed location is based on the speed limit, and the map may be zoomed in or zoomed out based on the speed limit).
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, Moore 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 zoom level for 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 at the second zoom level that has been determined based on the second posted speed limit (paragraphs 40-42 teaches the claimed wherein a zoom level for displaying the current routed location is based on the speed limit, and the map may be zoomed in or zoomed out based on the speed limit. Since the system automatically updates this process, when the vehicle reaches another portion of the routing with a different speed limit, the zoom level of the navigation display will also be updated).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Moore teaches the claimed wherein determining the second zoom level for displaying the second segment of the route based on the second posted speed limit comprises: determining that the second posted speed limit is greater than the first posted speed limit; and responsive to determining that the second posted speed limit is greater than the first posted speed limit: selecting the second zoom level to be a particular zoom level that causes a greater amount of the route to be displayed than is displayed at the first zoom level (paragraphs 40-42 teaches “a user traveling down a highway at a relatively high speed may be presented with a map view that is zoomed out very far”. Therefore higher/high speed relates to zooming out and vice versa, slower/slow speeds relates to zooming in to a smaller mapped area).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Moore teaches wherein determining the second zoom level for displaying the second segment of the route based on the second posted speed limit comprises: determining that the second posted speed limit is lower than the first posted speed limit; and responsive to determining that the second posted speed limit is lower than the first posted speed limit: selecting the second zoom level to be a particular zoom level that causes a smaller amount of the route to be displayed than is displayed at the first zoom level (paragraphs 40-42 teaches “a user traveling down a highway at a relatively high speed may be presented with a map view that is zoomed out very far”. Therefore higher/high speed relates to zooming out and vice versa, slower/slow speeds relates to zooming in to a smaller mapped area).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Moore teaches the claimed wherein displaying the segment of the route at the first zoom level that has been determined based on the first posted speed limit further comprises: identifying one or more points along the route based on the first zoom level; and framing, in a display of the device, a current location of the device and the one or more points along the route (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).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Moore 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 one or more points along the route based on the first zoom level and the physical characteristic of the segment of the route currently being traversed by the device (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 a physical characteristic of the segment of the route and is therefore identified as a POI that’s of more importance for display framing purposes).
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 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (US 2013/0103313) in view of Hirose (US 2005/0099323).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Moore teaches the claimed as discussed in claims 1 and 8 above, however fails to teach, but Hirose teaches wherein the one or more points include 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 because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the user convenience and user convenience (paragraph 138).
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
Prosecution Insights