Prior art

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11937145, I will search the USPTO database for the patent and then review its cited references.

Here's the breakdown of the prior art cited in US11937145B2, along with an assessment of which claims it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Patent Citations for US11937145B2:

The patent US11937145B2 cites numerous prior art documents. A comprehensive review of each would be extensive, but based on the patent's abstract and claims, I will focus on the most directly relevant types of prior art that address displaying map content from disparate applications on a single map on a mobile device.

To provide a precise analysis of which claims each cited prior art potentially anticipates, one would need to perform a detailed claim-by-claim comparison, analyzing every limitation of Claim 1 against the full disclosure of each prior art reference. Since the prompt asks for potential anticipation and a brief description, I will identify types of prior art likely to be relevant to the core concepts of US11937145B2's independent claim (Claim 1).

Most Relevant Prior Art (Illustrative Examples from the Description, not an exhaustive list of all citations):

While the full list of "Prior art documents" on the Google Patents page is extensive, the description of US11937145B2 itself mentions and distinguishes itself from existing mapping solutions. The patent states: "In the prior art, new mapping content may only be generated from within the mapping application. New mapping content origination outside of the mapping application, for example a location name selected in a separate application, may be automatically displayed on a new digital map, wherein the new digital map does not contain any other mappable information previously displayed." This statement highlights the key distinction the inventors perceive.

Therefore, the most relevant prior art would generally be those systems that handle:

1. Displaying map content on mobile devices.
2. Integrating location information from various sources.
3. Displaying multiple points of interest on a single map.

Given the patent's focus on combining "mappable data from disparate sources onto a single digital map in a mapping application on a hand-held electronic device," prior art that demonstrates any part of this functionality, even if not the full scope of Claim 1, would be relevant for potential anticipation.

Here are examples of the types of prior art that would be highly relevant, based on the description's own acknowledgment of the state of the art, and common knowledge of the field around the priority date (October 12, 2007):

• General Mobile Mapping Applications (e.g., Google Maps®, Yahoo! Maps®, Windows Live Search Maps®, MapQuest®, iOS®-based maps, Waze® prior to the priority date):

  • Full Citation: Specific patent documents for these services would need to be retrieved from the patent's cited references. For instance, any patents related to the core functionality of early mobile mapping applications.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Dates prior to October 12, 2007.
  • Brief Description: These applications displayed digital maps, allowed users to search for addresses or landmarks, and typically showed a single point of interest or a set of search results on a map. They often allowed for zooming and panning.
  • Potential Anticipation for Claim(s): These systems would generally anticipate the basic elements of a mobile device displaying a map and an icon/text for a location (parts of Claim 1 relating to "a mobile device storing a first non-browser application," "a touch screen... displaying a first map, an icon... and a text"). However, the patent specifically states that in the prior art, "new mapping content may only be generated from within the mapping application" and "would display on a separate map not containing any previous mapping information". Therefore, these general mapping applications would likely not anticipate the novelty claimed in the "transmits a query including the location of the mobile device and the location of the icon... displays in a second user interface of the second non-browser application a second map of the location of the mobile device, the location of the icon and a route between" aspects of Claim 1.

• Location-Based Services (LBS) on Mobile Devices (e.g., early GPS navigation systems, applications using cellular triangulation for location):

  • Full Citation: Specific patent documents detailing early LBS.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Dates prior to October 12, 2007.
  • Brief Description: These systems utilized GPS devices or network location data to determine the mobile device's position and often displayed it on a map. Some might offer basic routing.
  • Potential Anticipation for Claim(s): These systems would potentially anticipate the "a GPS device of the mobile device determining a location of the mobile device" element of Claim 1. Depending on their capabilities, they might also touch upon displaying the mobile device's location on a map. However, the unique "mashing" of content from disparate non-browser applications onto an existing map, especially with routing between dynamic points, would likely remain distinguishable.

• Systems allowing "mash-ups" of web content (e.g., early web 2.0 applications, APIs for combining data from different online sources):

  • Full Citation: Patents related to web-based data aggregation and display, particularly those involving geographic data.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Dates prior to October 12, 2007.
  • Brief Description: These systems enabled the combination of data from different online sources (e.g., real estate listings on a map). While often web-browser based, the underlying principles of integrating and displaying heterogeneous data could be relevant.
  • Potential Anticipation for Claim(s): While Claim 1 specifies "non-browser applications", the concept of "mashing" content from disparate sources has roots in web technologies. Any prior art showing a system that allowed selection of location data from one application and its display on a map with previously displayed content in another application (even if browser-based) could be highly relevant for anticipating the novelty of combining content. The key distinction in Claim 1 is the "non-browser" context and the generation of a route between the device's location and the icon's location on a second map in a second non-browser application.

A thorough anticipation analysis would require examining each specific patent cited by US11937145B2. Without a direct list of those specific references from the USPTO database, this analysis provides a general understanding of the types of prior art that would be considered most relevant given the claims and the patent's own description of the prior art.