DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipate by Nagda et al (US 6862524 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nagda et al teaches a method comprising: displaying, by a navigation application (Figs. 8-11), a road segment (Figs. 3, 5) on a map (40 in Fig. 3) being displayed (see Figs. 3, 5; Column 6, lines 40-56; Column 8, lines 10-20) at a first zoom level (see at least Fig. 8, Fig. 9, col. 9, lines 28-35, image 70 includes traffic level indicators 44 superimposed on a map of the specified geographic area, further fig. 8 clearly shows that at present zoom level traffic shows adjacent to the particular road segment), (see at least Fig. 9, col. 9, lines 56-57, zoomed-in image 71, which reveals more details about the traffic congestion on bay street, further Fig. 9 clearly shows that at zoomed-in level traffic shows over the adjacent or over to the particular road segment);
determining, by the navigation application, a first traffic condition corresponding to the road segment (see Figs. 5-7; Column 8, lines 10-52);
based at least in part on the first zoom level: selecting a first location, on the map, of a plurality of locations relative to the road segment, for placing a first traffic indicator (44 in Fig. 3) corresponding to a first traffic condition (Figs. 7-9; Column 9, lines 1-57); and
displaying the first traffic indicator corresponding to the first traffic condition at the first location on the map being displayed at the first zoom level (Figs. 7-9; Column 9, lines 1-57).
Regarding Claims 7, 14, Nagda et al teaches the method wherein selecting the first location based at least in part on the first zoom level comprises selecting the first location based at least in part on a characteristic of the road segment on the map when the map is displayed at the first zoom level (Column 9, lines 14-57).
Regarding Claim 8, the CRM Claim 8 is rejected for same reason as the method Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims.
Regarding Claim 15, the apparatus Claim 15 is rejected for same reason as the method Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 9-13, 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY SHANKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am- 6 pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
VIJAY SHANKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/VIJAY SHANKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights