DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to claims filed 1/17/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Figure 24 is described on pages 30-32 of the specification filed 1/17/2025, with respect to process 2400, comprising the following steps:
2405: receiving input to modify the view of the map,
2410: determining whether the received input is for rotating the view of the map,
2415: determining whether map labels rotated past a threshold angle,
2420: providing a transition to display inverted versions of the map labels,
2425: determining whether the received input is for adjusting the zoom of the view of the map,
2430: determining whether styles have changed for any map labels,
2435: providing a transition to display map labels with new styles, and
2420: determining whether any input to modify the view of the map is received.
The description of the above steps does not match those of Figure 24 and seem to pertain to the steps of Figure 23. The above steps described in the specification should be amended to correspond to the steps of Figure 23. Additionally, it should be noted that the specification describes two different steps labeled 2420, which is the reason that objections to the specification have been made, as opposed to drawing objections.
Figure 23 is described on pages 29-30 of the specification filed 1/17/2025, with respect to process 2300, comprising the following steps:
2305: generating label meshes for map labels,
2310: loading the glyphs for map labels,
2315: applying animation for the map view, and
2320: drawing the view of the map for display on a device.
The description of the above steps does not match those of Figure 23 and seem to pertain to the steps of Figure 24. The above steps described in the specification should be amended to correspond to the steps of Figure 24.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,657,587 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because application claims 1 and 7 are anticipated by patent claim 10, application claims 8 and 14 are anticipated by patent claim 1, and application claim 15 is anticipated by patent claim 19.
With respect to application claim 1, patent claim 10 recites a method comprising:
displaying a map on a display of a device (see the limitations of “method for providing views of a map on a touch-sensitive graphical user interface (GUI) of a computing device” and “presenting, on the touch-sensitive GUI, a map view”);
performing a zoom operation on the map (see the limitations of “receiving a touch input on the touch-sensitive GUI to adjust a zoom level of the map view” and “while the touch input adjusting the map zoom level of the map view is being received on the touch-sensitive GUI: detecting that the zoom level of the map view crosses a first threshold level”); and
in response to performing the zoom operation on the map: generating an animation with respect to a label displayed on the map (see the limitations of “presenting, on the touch-sensitive GUI, a map view that includes a map label displayed with a first label style” and “while the touch input adjusting the map zoom level of the map view is being received on the touch-sensitive GUI…updating the presentation of the map view to display the map label with a second label style corresponding to the first threshold level”). The limitation of “animation” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s specification and thus encompasses any visual update to the label, including style.
With respect to application claim 7, patent claim 10 recites wherein the zoom operation is performed in response to a touch input causing the zoom operation (see the limitation of “receiving a touch input on the touch-sensitive GUI to adjust a zoom level of the map view”).
With respect to application claim 8, patent claim 1 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
displaying a map on a display of a device (see the limitations of “a non-transitory medium storing a mapping application which when executed on a device by at least one processing unit of a device provides views of a map on a touch-sensitive graphical user interface (GUI)” and “presenting, on the touch-sensitive GUI, a map view”);
performing a zoom operation on the map (see the limitations of “receiving a touch input on the touch-sensitive GUI to adjust a zoom level of the map view” and “while the touch input adjusting the map zoom level of the map view is being received on the touch-sensitive GUI: detecting that the zoom level of the map view crosses a first threshold level”); and
in response to performing the zoom operation on the map: generating an animation with respect to a label displayed on the map (see the limitations of “presenting, on the touch-sensitive GUI, a map view that includes a map label displayed with a first label style” and “while the touch input adjusting the map zoom level of the map view is being received on the touch-sensitive GUI…updating the presentation of the map view to display the map label with a second label style corresponding to the first threshold level”). The limitation of “animation” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s specification and thus encompasses any visual update to the label, including style.
With respect to application claim 14, patent claim 1 recites wherein the zoom operation is performed in response to a touch input causing the zoom operation (see the limitation of “receiving a touch input on the touch-sensitive GUI to adjust a zoom level of the map view”).
With respect to application claim 15, patent application 19 recites a system (see the claimed “device”) comprising:
one or more processors (see the limitation of “a set of processing units”); 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 (see the limitation of “a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a mapping application which when executed by at least one of the processing units provides views of a map on a touch-sensitive graphical user interface (GUI) of the device, the mapping application comprising sets of instructions”) comprising:
displaying a map on a display of a device (see the limitations of “a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a mapping application which when executed by at least one of the processing units provides views of a map on a touch-sensitive graphical user interface (GUI) of the device” and “presenting, on the touch-sensitive GUI, a map view”);
performing a zoom operation on the map (see the limitations of “receiving a touch input on the touch-sensitive GUI to adjust a zoom level of the map view” and “while the touch input adjusting the map zoom level of the map view is being received on the touch-sensitive GUI: detecting that the zoom level of the map view crosses a first threshold level”); and
in response to performing the zoom operation on the map: generating an animation with respect to a label displayed on the map (see the limitations of “presenting, on the touch-sensitive GUI, a map view that includes a map label displayed with a first label style” and “while the touch input adjusting the map zoom level of the map view is being received on the touch-sensitive GUI…updating the presentation of the map view to display the map label with a second label style corresponding to the first threshold level”). The limitation of “animation” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s specification and thus encompasses any visual update to the label, including style.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are further rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,182,959 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because application claim 1 is anticipated by patent claim 17, application claim 8 are anticipated by patent claim 1, and application claim 15 is anticipated by patent claim 9.
With respect to application claim 1, patent claim 17 recites a method comprising:
displaying a map on a display of a device (see the limitation of “displaying the first map label in the first view of the 3D map”);
performing a zoom operation on the map (see the limitation of “subsequent to performing a zoom operation”); and
in response to performing the zoom operation on the map: generating an animation with respect to a label displayed on the map (see the limitations of “subsequent to performing a zoom operation: identifying…a second virtual camera position for rendering a second view of the 3D map; projecting…second geometrical construct with at least one second point that is outside the first two-dimensional plane that includes the first map label;… rendering and displaying…the route corresponding to navigation instructions using the second view of the 3D map without including the first map label”). The limitation of “animation” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s specification and thus encompasses any visual update to the label, including removal.
With respect to application claim 8, patent claim 1 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
displaying a map on a display of a device (see the limitation of “rendering and displaying, by the mapping application, a route corresponding to navigation instructions using the first view of the 3D map including the first map label”);
performing a zoom operation on the map (see the limitation of “subsequent to performing a zoom operation”); and
in response to performing the zoom operation on the map: generating an animation with respect to a label displayed on the map (see the limitations of “subsequent to performing a zoom operation: identifying…a second virtual camera position for rendering a second view of the 3D map; projecting…second geometrical construct with at least one second point that is outside the first two-dimensional plane that includes the first map label;… rendering and displaying…the route corresponding to navigation instructions using the second view of the 3D map without including the first map label”). The limitation of “animation” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s specification and thus encompasses any visual update to the label, including removal.
With respect to application claim 15, patent claim 9 recites a system comprising:
one or more processors (see the limitation of “at least one processing unit”); 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 (see the limitation of “a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a mapping application which when executed by the at least one processing unit causes the at least one processing unit to perform operations”) comprising:
displaying a map on a display of a device (see the limitation of “rendering and displaying, by the mapping application, a route corresponding to navigation instructions using the first view of the 3D map including the first map label”);
performing a zoom operation on the map (see the limitation of “subsequent to performing a zoom operation”); and
in response to performing the zoom operation on the map: generating an animation with respect to a label displayed on the map (see the limitations of “subsequent to performing a zoom operation: identifying…a second virtual camera position for rendering a second view of the 3D map; projecting…second geometrical construct with at least one second point that is outside the first two-dimensional plane that includes the first map label;… rendering and displaying…the route corresponding to navigation instructions using the second view of the 3D map without including the first map label”). The limitation of “animation” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s specification and thus encompasses any visual update to the label, including removal.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,128,959 B2 in view of Kashiwa et al. (US 9,798,408 B2), hereinafter Kashiwa ‘408.
With respect to application claims 7 and 14, patent claims 17 and 1, respectively, recite wherein the zoom operation is performed (see the limitation of “performing a zoom operation”). Patent claims 1 and 17 lack the “zoom operation” being performed in response to a touch input causing the zoom operation. However, Kashiwa ‘408 teaches performing zoom operations of zoom in and zoom out in response to a touch input (see Figures 48A-B, as described in col. 6, lines 25-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “zoom operation” recited in patent claims 1 and 17 to be performed in response to a touch input causing the zoom operation, as taught by Kashiwa ‘408, with the predictable result of providing an intuitive means for a user to zoom in and out on a map.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over original claim 14 of copending Application No 18/917,932 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present application claims 1, 8, and 15 are anticipated by reference application claim 14.
With respect to present application claim 1, reference application claim 14 recites a method comprising:
displaying a map on a display of a device (see the limitation of “instructions which, when executed by at least one processing unit of a device, causes the at least one processing unit to perform operations comprising: displaying, by a map application, a map at a first zoom level” of claim 9);
performing a zoom operation on the map (see the limitation of “receiving…user input selecting a second zoom level that is different from the first zoom level; and responsive to receiving the user input: displaying, by the mapping application, the map at the second zoom level” of claim 9); and
in response to performing the zoom operation on the map: generating an animation with respect to a label displayed on the map (see the limitation of “the label displayed on the map at the first zoom level is displayed using a first font size; wherein the label displayed on the map displayed at the third zoom level is displayed using a second font size different from the first font size” of claim 14). The limitation of “animation” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s specification and thus encompasses any visual update to the label, including font size.
Reference application claim 14 is applied similarly to present application claims 8 and 15. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 recite wherein animation comprises… This limitation should instead recite “wherein the animation comprises” to provide clear relationships between elements.
Claim 6 recites the limitation of determining that a style of map labels changes between a first zoom level and a second zoom level, and in response to determining that the style of map labels changes between the first zoom level and the second zoom level: cross-fading a first label having the first style and a second label having the second style, while claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites the steps of:
displaying a map on a display of a device;
performing a zoom operation on the map; and
in response to performing the zoom operation on the map: generating an animation with respect to a label displayed on the map.
The limitations of claim 6 attempt to rewrite the core method of claim 1. Claim 6 should be drafted to further limit the “animation” generated in claim 1 to be a “cross-fading” operation, e.g., wherein the animation comprises cross-fading the label having a first style... Claims 13 and 20 are objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 6 also recites cross-fading a first label having the first style and a second label having the second style (emphasis added). The “cross-fading” operation is described in the Applicant’s specification as transitioning from a first label having a first style to a second label having a second style. In light of the specification, the Applicant’s intention may have been for “and” to be recited as “to.” Claims 13 and 20 are objected to for similar reasons.
See rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding additional issues related to claims 6, 13, and 20.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite the limitations of the first style and the second style. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, a particular “first style” and “second style” cannot be considered inherent features of the first label and second label, respectively.
Additionally, claims 6, 13, and 20 recite the limitation of determining that a style of map labels changes between a first zoom level and a second zoom level, and in response to determining that the style of map labels changes between the first zoom level and the second zoom level: cross-fading a first label having the first style and a second label having the second style, while independent claims 1, 8, and 15, from which claims 6, 13, and 20 respectively depend, recite the limitation of generating an animation with respect to a label displayed on the map. It is unclear whether the “first label” is intended to be interpreted as the “label” of the independent claims or if the “first label” and “second label” are entirely separate and distinct from the “label” of the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis of Claim 1
Claim 1. A method comprising:
displaying a map on a display of a device;
performing a zoom operation on the map; and
in response to performing the zoom operation on the map:
generating an animation with respect to a label displayed on the map.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of in response to performing the zoom operation on the map: generating an animation with respect to a label displayed on the map. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “animation” is data representing a visual modification of a graphical object. The broadest reasonable interpretation of label, in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representing a label, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “map” is data representing a map. This limitation is merely manipulating data presentation based on a shift in a user’s viewpoint (i.e. “zoom operation”) and does not describe any particular algorithm to generate the claimed “animation.”
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. label displayed on a map) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. generate an animation) in response to a generally recited condition (i.e. zoom operation). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of:
displaying a map on a display of a device;
performing a zoom operation on the map.
The “displaying” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general display of a map) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The “display of a device” merely acts in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to display data), and therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “display” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “display of a device” is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The “performing” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general zoom operation) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Zooming is a routine, well-understood, and conventional way for a user to interact with digital graphics. Since the “zoom operation” provides a standard input prior to executing the abstract idea, the “performing” step reasonably represents insignificant pre-solution activity.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the displaying and performing steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites the displays of a variety of different devices as conventional and commonly used for displaying maps, and the specification does not provide any indication that the zoom operation is anything other than common and well-known user input. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 2-7
Dependent claims 2-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of wherein the animation comprises fading the label onto the map.
The “fading” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general fading the label onto the map) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). No technological details are recited with respect to the “fading” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “fading” step is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The courts treat high-level graphical display, such as fading, as abstract visual presentations of data. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 2 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the additional elements of wherein animation comprises fading the label onto the map in response to a zoom-in operation that displays a map object, corresponding to the label, that was not displayed prior to the zoom-in operation. The “fading” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general fading the label onto the map) and amounts to post-solution activity upon a generally recited condition (i.e. zoom-in operation), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). No technological details are recited with respect to the “fading” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “fading” step is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The courts treat high-level graphical display, such as fading, as abstract visual presentations of data. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Further, zooming is a routine, well-understood, and conventional way for a user to interact with digital graphics. Thus, the “zoom-in operation” amounts to mere data gathering of user input. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 3 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of wherein the animation comprises fading the label off the map.
The “fading” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general fading the label off the map) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). No technological details are recited with respect to the “fading” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “fading” step is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The courts treat high-level graphical display, such as fading, as abstract visual presentations of data. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 4 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of wherein animation comprises fading the label off the map in response to a zoom-out operation that removes a map object, corresponding to the label, that was displayed prior to the zoom-out operation.
The “fading” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general fading the label off the map) and amounts to post-solution activity upon a generally recited condition (i.e. zoom-out operation), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). No technological details are recited with respect to the “fading” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “fading” step is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The courts treat high-level graphical display, such as fading, as abstract visual presentations of data. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Further, zooming is a routine, well-understood, and conventional way for a user to interact with digital graphics. Thus, the “zoom-out operation” amounts to mere data gathering of user input. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of:
determining that a style of map labels changes between a first zoom level and a second zoom level; and
in response to determining that the style of map labels changes between the first zoom level and the second zoom level: cross-fading a first label having the first style and a second label having the second style.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “cross-fading” is a visual modification of a graphical object, such that as one graphical object fades out, another graphical object fades in. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “first label” and a “second label,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representing labels, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “first style” and a “second style” is data representing a styles. This limitation is merely manipulating data presentation based on a shift in a user’s viewpoint (i.e. change between a first zoom level and a second level) and does not describe any particular algorithm to generate the claimed “cross-fading.”
The “determining” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. style of map labels and zoom levels) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determining that a style of map labels changes between zoom levels). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “cross-fading” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. a first label having a first style and a second label having a second style) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. cross-fading the first label and the second label) in response to a generally recited condition (i.e. determining that the style of map labels changes between a first zoom level and a second zoom level). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “cross-fading” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the cross-fading is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The courts treat high-level graphical display, such as cross-fading, as abstract visual presentations of data. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of wherein the zoom operation is performed in response to a touch input causing the zoom operation.
The limitation of performing a “zoom operation” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general performing a zoom operation) and amounts to mere data gathering upon a generally recited condition (i.e. in response to touch input), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Zooming is a routine, well-understood, and conventional way for a user to interact with digital graphics. No technological details are recited with respect to the “touch input causing the zoom operation” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the limitation of “a touch input causing the zoom operation” is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 7 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
101 Analysis of Claim 8
Claim 8. A non-transitory computer readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
displaying a map on a display of a device; performing a zoom operation on the map; and
in response to performing the zoom operation on the map: generating an animation with respect to a label displayed on the map.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites an article of manufacture or product. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for claim 8, with respect to step 2A prong one.
Further, the recitation of the “one or more processors” as performing the claimed operations is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. “one or more processors”) as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. “displaying” and “generating” steps) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for claim 8, with respect to step 2A prong two.
Further, the “one or more processors” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The “one or more processors” is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the “displaying” and “generating” steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for claim 8, with respect to step 2B.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 9-14
Dependent claims 9-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Specifically, claims 9-14 correspond in scope to claims 2-7, respectively, and therefore, the limitations of claims 9-14 represent a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) with no additional computer-based elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B) using analyses similar to those discussed in the rejections of dependent claims 2-7 above.
101 Analysis of Claim 15
Claim 15. A system comprising:
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:
displaying a map on a display of a device; performing a zoom operation on the map; and
in response to performing the zoom operation on the map: generating an animation with respect to a label displayed on the map.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for claim 15, with respect to step 2A prong one.
Further, the recitation of the “one or more processors” as performing the claimed operations is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. “one or more processors”) as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. “displaying” and “generating” steps) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
The mere nominal recitation of a “computer readable medium” as being an object upon which instructions for executing the claimed method are provided does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for claim 15, with respect to step 2A prong two.
Further, the “one or more processors” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The “one or more processors” is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the “displaying” and “generating” steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “computer readable medium” merely acts in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to store data), and therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for claim 15, with respect to step 2B.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 16-20
Dependent claims 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Specifically, claims 16-20 correspond in scope to claims 2-6, respectively, and therefore, the limitations of claims 16-20 represent a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) with no additional computer-based elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B) using analyses similar to those discussed in the rejections of dependent claims 2-6 above.
Claims 1-20 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Examiner’s Note
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined in the following prior art rejections.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
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 (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 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)(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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aaron.Sasson (“Google Maps single hand zoom in/out,” December 27, 2012, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSQdR7EHSpc), hereinafter Sasson.
Claim 1
Sasson discloses the claimed method comprising:
displaying a map on a display of a device (see first captured image on page 1, depicting a Google map displayed on a mobile device);
performing a zoom operation on the map (see the video and sequence of frames captured on pages 1-7, depicting zoom-in and zoom-out operations using “single-tap pull-out” input on the displayed map); and
in response to performing the zoom operation on the map: generating an animation with respect to a label displayed on the map (e.g., see transitions of the Diamond Brook Park “label” from 0:50 through 0:52 on pages 1-4 in which the label is faded in and out in response to zoom-in and zoom-out input, respectively).
While the Diamond Brook Park label has been applied to teach the “label,” any other label displayed in Sasson may be reasonably applied, given that all labels on the Google map of Sasson exhibit fading in and out operations similar to the Diamond Brook Park label in response to zoom input, as depicted in the video of Sasson. The limitation of “animation” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
Claim 2
Sasson further discloses that the animation comprises fading the label onto the map (see frames 0:50 depicted on pages 1-3, depicting the transition of the Diamond Brook Park “label” as fading onto the Google map, in which the first captured image does not display the label, the second captured image displays a faded version of the label, and third and fourth images display the label).
Claim 3
Sasson further discloses that animation comprises fading the label onto the map in response to a zoom-in operation that displays a map object, corresponding to the label, that was not displayed prior to the zoom-in operation (see frames 0:50 depicted on pages 1-3, depicting the transition of the Diamond Brook Park “label” associated with a tree “map object” as fading onto the Google map in response to zoom in operations, in which the first captured image does not display the label, the second captured image displays a faded version of the label, and third and fourth images display the label).
Claim 4
Sasson further discloses that the animation comprises fading the label off the map (see frames 0:50 through 0:52 on pages 3-5, depicting the transition of the Diamond Brook Park “label” as fading out of the Google map, in which the first captured image clearly displays the label, the second and third images display faded versions of the label, and the fourth, fifth, and sixth images no longer display the label).
Claim 5
Sasson further discloses that animation comprises fading the label off the map in response to a zoom-out operation that removes a map object, corresponding to the label, that was displayed prior to the zoom-out operation (see frames 0:50 through 0:52 on pages 3-5, depicting the transition of the Diamond Brook Park “label” associated with a tree “map object” as fading out of the Google map in response to zoom out operations, in which the first captured image clearly displays the label, the second and third images display faded versions of the label, and the fourth, fifth, and sixth images no longer display the label).
Claim 7
Sasson further discloses that the zoom operation is performed in response to a touch input causing the zoom operation (see transcript on page 1, describing the operations of double tap or single tap to zoom out, where touch operations are also used to perform the zoom in operations, as depicted on pages 1-2).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasson in view of Miller (US 8,896,630 B1), hereinafter Miller, and Penkler (“Morphing,” 1997, CESCG, https://old.cescg.org/CESCG97/penkler/morphing.htm), hereinafter Penkler.
Claims 6, 13, and 20
Sasson does not further disclose determining that a style of map labels changes between a first zoom level and a second zoom level, and in response to determining that the style of map labels changes between the first zoom level and the second zoom level: cross-fading a first label having the first style and a second label having the second style. However, the limitations of the “map labels,” “first zoom level,” and “second zoom level” are not influenced by the preceding limitations; therefore, prior art may be reasonably combined. Further, see the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding issues with this limitation.
Miller teaches displaying map data (similar to the map of Sasson) via a user interface (similar to the device of Sasson) (see col. 11, lines 19-26, with respect to block 122 of Figure 7), where the map data includes feature data and label data (similar to the label of Sasson) (see col. 10, lines 49-63). Miller further teaches determining that a style of map labels changes between a first zoom level and a second zoom level (see col. 11, line 52-col. 12, line 52, with respect to Figure 7, regarding label text is displayed using label style information for a given zoom level in block 130, and in response to determining a new zoom level is outside of a range of zoom levels for which the label data is valid in block 134, a new label with new style data is determined to be displayed in block 138), and in response to determining that the style of map labels changes between the style of map labels changes between the first zoom level and the second zoom level, transitioning a first label having the first style and a second label having the second style (see col. 11, line 52-col. 12, line 52, with respect to Figure 7, regarding label text is displayed using label style information for a given zoom level in block 130, and in response to determining a new zoom level is outside of a range of zoom levels for which the label data is valid in block 134, a new label with new style data is determined to be displayed in block 138, where multiple labels are treated as a group during zoom processes, as described in col. 4, lines 29-47, e.g., Table 1 in col. 9, lines 10-24 indicates that crossing particular zoom levels affects different feature types with different styles). Miller does not explicitly teach that the transition of the “first label” and the “second label” is a cross-fading type of transition; however, it would be capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration to incorporate a “cross-fading” operation in the transition from the label displayed in block 130 to the label displayed in block 138 of Miller, given the significant visual change reflected by the new zoom level being outside of the range of zoom levels for which the label data is valid in block 134 in which a smooth transition would be justified, in light of Penkler.
Specifically, Penkler teaches the technique of cross-fading as a known method in which one image is faded out while another image is simultaneously faded in (see first paragraph of section 2.1), where each pixel is interpolated over time from a first image value to the corresponding second image value (see first bullet point in section 2.2). The two different images in Penkler may reasonably apply to the “first label” and “second label” of Miller.
Since the systems of Miller and Penkler are directed to the same purpose, i.e. visually transitioning digital images to different digital images, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transition of a first label having the first style and a second label having the second style of Miller to be a cross-fading type of transition, in the same manner that Penkler describes the use of cross-dissolve in which one image is faded out while another image is simultaneously faded in, with the predictable result of using the simplest method for changing one digital image to another (see first bullet point of section 2.2 of Penkler).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Sasson to further include the steps of determining that a style of map labels changes between a first zoom level and a second zoom level, and in response to determining that the style of map labels changes between the first zoom level and the second zoom level: cross-fading a first label having the first style and a second label having the second style, in light of the combination of Miller and Penkler, with the predictable result of providing appropriate labels for particular zoom levels, e.g. replacing inappropriately small labels with appropriate larger labels when zoom level increases (col. 8, lines 56-51 of Miller) using the simplest method for changing one digital image, e.g., label, to another (see first bullet point of section 2.2 of Penkler).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasson in view of Miller.
Claim 8
Sasson further discloses the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations described in the rejection of claim 1. Specifically, the mobile phone depicted throughout the video of Sasson inherently comprises a Google map application stored on memory that is executed by a processor of the mobile phone. In order to more clearly teach this inherency, Sasson is combined with Miller.
Specifically, Miller teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations on a mapping application (see col. 13, lines 13-26, regarding code embodied on a machine-readable medium configures one or more processors to perform the method of operating a mapping application at the mobile phone device 18, described in col. 11, lines 19-22; col. 5, lines 12-34, regarding mobile phone device 18 stores and implements a map rendering engine). It should be further noted that the assignee of Miller is Google, and the mobile phone of Sasson is running a Google maps application. Therefore, it would be reasonable to interpret and/or modify the mobile phone of Sasson to incorporate the “non-transitory computer readable medium” and “one or more processors” described in Miller to execute the method performed on the mobile phone of Sasson.
Since the systems of Sasson and Miller are directed to the same purpose, i.e. executing a maps application on a mobile phone, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile phone of Sasson to include a non-transitory computer readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, in light of Miller, with the predictable result of being obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143, with respect to rationale (E). Specifically, configuring processors by software is common in the art, due to software’s inherent features of updateability, portability, and scalability.
Claim 15
Sasson further discloses the claimed system (i.e. mobile phone) comprising 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 discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Specifically, the mobile phone depicted throughout the video of Sasson inherently comprises a Google map application stored on memory that is executed by a processor of the mobile phone. In order to more clearly teach this inherency, Sasson is combined with Miller.
Specifically, Miller teaches a system comprising 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 on a mapping application (see col. 13, lines 13-26, regarding code embodied on a machine-readable medium configures one or more processors to perform the method of operating a mapping application at the mobile phone device 18, described in col. 11, lines 19-22; col. 5, lines 12-34, regarding mobile phone device 18 stores and implements a map rendering engine). It should be further noted that the assignee of Miller is Google, and the mobile phone of Sasson is running a Google maps application. Therefore, it would be reasonable to interpret and/or modify the mobile phone of Sasson to incorporate the “one or more processors” and “computer readable medium” described in Miller to execute the method performed on the mobile phone of Sasson.
Since the systems of Sasson and Miller are directed to the same purpose, i.e. executing a maps application on a mobile phone, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile phone of Sasson to include a system comprising 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, in light of Miller, with the predictable result of being obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143, with respect to rationale (E). Specifically, configuring processors by software is common in the art, due to software’s inherent features of updateability, portability, and scalability.
Claims 9-12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasson in view of Miller.
Claims 9 and 16
Sasson further discloses that the animation comprises fading the label onto the map (see frames 0:50 depicted on pages 1-3, depicting the transition of the Diamond Brook Park “label” as fading onto the Google map, in which the first captured image does not display the label, the second captured image displays a faded version of the label, and third and fourth images display a clear label).
Claims 10 and 17
Sasson further discloses that animation comprises fading the label onto the map in response to a zoom-in operation that displays a map object, corresponding to the label, that was not displayed prior to the zoom-in operation (see frames 0:50 depicted on pages 1-3, depicting the transition of the Diamond Brook Park “label” associated with a tree “map object” as fading onto the Google map in response to zoom in operations, in which the first captured image does not display the label, the second captured image displays a faded version of the label, and third and fourth images display a clear label).
Claims 11 and 18
Sasson further discloses that the animation comprises fading the label off the map (see frames 0:50 through 0:52 on pages 3-5, depicting the transition of the Diamond Brook Park “label” as fading out of the Google map, in which the first captured image clearly displays the label, the second and third images display faded versions of the label, and the fourth, fifth, and sixth images no longer display the label).
Claims 12 and 19
Sasson further discloses that animation comprises fading the label off the map in response to a zoom-out operation that removes a map object, corresponding to the label, that was displayed prior to the zoom-out operation (see frames 0:50 through 0:52 on pages 3-5, depicting the transition of the Diamond Brook Park “label” associated with a tree “map object” as fading out of the Google map in response to zoom out operations, in which the first captured image clearly displays the label, the second and third images display faded versions of the label, and the fourth, fifth, and sixth images no longer display the label).
Claim 14
Sasson further discloses that the zoom operation is performed in response to a touch input causing the zoom operation (see transcript on page 1, describing the operations of double tap or single tap to zoom out, where touch operations are also used to perform the zoom in operations, as depicted on pages 1-2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Kashiwa et al. (US 2014/0111456) teaches calculating the display range of an object when the change in zoom level is greater than a threshold (see ¶0078, with respect to Figure 12), where the image may be a map image (see ¶0037), Sartipi et al. (US 2012/0316782 A1) teaches magnifying a portion of a map at a second zoom level (see ¶0060, with respect to Figure 2) that includes labels (see ¶0045), and Bales et al. (US 2011/0313649 A1) teaches a custom zooming process in which labels are provided with bigger font size at a next zoom level (see ¶0077, with respect to Figure 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights