DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 15 July 2025.
Claims 1-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 6-7, 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
“features recited in claims 6, 9 and 14 do not comprise a mental process as it includes the UE “receiving, from a user of the UE, an input to the at least one destination” and/or “output the calculated route via a display module of the UE””
Examiner’s Response:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.
Also, see MPEP 2106.05(d): Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility.
Applicant points to the limitations of “receiving, from a user of the UE, an input to the at least one destination” and/or “output the calculated route via a display module of the UE”, see remarks at pages 10, as not reciting a mental process. However, Examiner has not identified these limitations as a mental process. These limitations were identified as receiving or outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), respectively, therefore arguments regarding these limitations are moot. With regard to the limitation of “calculate a route for the at least one destination based on a current location of the UE”, a person can calculate a route to a destination based on a current location, which can be performed mentally or with a pen and paper. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained. See rejection below.
Applicant's arguments, see remarks at page(s) 10-12, filed 15 July 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 over Quint et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the Examiner agrees Quint does not teach “a confirmation that the navigation session is resumed or continued by the OBU”. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Quint et al. (US 20230194270 A1) in view of Couckuyt et al. (US 8060297 B2).
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 6-7, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the claims are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Claims 6-7 and 9 are directed towards an apparatus, i.e., machine. Claim 14 is directed towards a method, i.e., process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The apparatus in claims 6-7 and 9 (also, the method in claim 14) comprises a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. With regard to dependent claims 6, 9 and 14, the apparatus/method (or computer implemented functionality) recites the steps of: (a) calculate a route for the at least one destination based on the input or (b) calculate a route for the at least one destination based on a current location of the UE. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). For example, a person can calculate (i.e., determine) a route to at least one destination based on an input or a current location of the UE, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the calculating is being performed by processor (i.e., a computer) does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The Examiner notes that claims 1, 12, 16 and 27 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the limitations of: start a navigation session on the UE; establish a communication with an on-board unit (OBU), wherein the communication is based on a data sharing protocol; transmit, to the OBU, route information associated with the navigation session via the established communication, wherein the route information includes at least one destination; and receive, from the OBU, a confirmation that the navigation session is resumed or continued by the OBU are all extra-solution activity. Receiving or outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Start a navigation session on the UE, establish a communication with an on-board unit (OBU), wherein the communication is based on a data sharing protocol; transmit, to the OBU, route information associated with the navigation session via the established communication, wherein the route information includes at least one destination; and receive, from the OBU, a confirmation that the navigation session is resumed or continued by the OBU, as claimed, is receiving or outputting data. Therefore, start a navigation session on the UE; establish a communication with an on-board unit (OBU), wherein the communication is based on a data sharing protocol; transmit, to the OBU, route information associated with the navigation session via the established communication, wherein the route information includes at least one destination; and receive, from the OBU, a confirmation that the navigation session is resumed or continued by the OBU is insignificant extra-solution activity.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 6 recites the additional element of a “at least one processor”. The processor is simply a computer recited at a high level of generality. The generic computer is used to perform the abstract idea. Using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the exception into a practical application. In addition, receiving or outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Receive, from a user of the UE, an input to the at least one destination and output the calculated route via a display module of the UE, as claimed, is receiving or outputting data. Therefore, receive, from a user of the UE, an input to the at least one destination and output the calculated route via a display module of the UE is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites the additional element of a “at least one processor”. The processor is simply a computer recited at a high level of generality. The generic computer is used to perform the abstract idea. Using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the exception into a practical application. In addition, receiving or outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Detect that the communication with the OBU is terminated and output the calculated route via a display module of the UE, as claimed, is receiving or outputting data. Therefore, detect that the communication with the OBU is terminated and output the calculated route via a display module of the UE is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 14 recites the additional element of a “at least one processor”. The processor is simply a computer recited at a high level of generality. The generic computer is used to perform the abstract idea. Using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the exception into a practical application. In addition, receiving or outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Receiving, from a user of the UE, an input to the at least one destination and outputting the calculated route via a display module of the UE, as claimed, is receiving or outputting data. Therefore, receiving, from a user of the UE, an input to the at least one destination and outputting the calculated route via a display module of the UE is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 14 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The following computer functions have been recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality): receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Output the calculated route via a display module of the UE is receiving or transmitting data over a network (i.e., from one computing device networked to another computing device). Therefore, the limitation “output the calculated route via a display module of the UE” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 6, 9 and 14 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 6, 9 and 14 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Further, dependent claim 7 further limits the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Each of the claimed limitations either expand upon or add either 1) new mental process, 2) a new additional element, 3) previously presented mental process, and/or 4) a previously presented additional element. As such, claim 7 is similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 12-14, 16, 19-25, 27 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quint et al. (US 20230194270 A1) in view of Couckuyt et al. (US 8060297 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 16 and 27, Quint teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory (see at least ¶[0005], [0061]-[0064], [0066], [0068]-[0071] regarding a memory); and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (see at least ¶[0005], [0061]-[0062], [0064]-[0066], [0068]-[0069] and [0071] regarding a processor), the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to: start a navigation session on the UE (see at least ¶[0050] regarding determining/generating a pedestrian route from a current location of a mobile device to the location of the associated vehicle); establish a communication with an on-board unit (OBU) (see at least ¶[0030], [0035], [0038]-[0039], [0043]-[0045] and [0052] regarding a mobile device 130 communication connection being established with the vehicle 140/the in-vehicle navigation system 145), wherein the communication is based on a data sharing protocol (see at least ¶[0030], [0035], [0038]-[0039], [0043]-[0045] and [0052] regarding a mobile device 130 communication connection being established with the vehicle 140/the in-vehicle navigation system 145 as well as the data being sent directly, such as via short-range radio communication (e.g., Bluetooth) or other wireless communication protocols); transmit, to the OBU, route information associated with the navigation session via the established communication (see at least ¶[0027], [0038] and [0040]-[0041] regarding data for the driving route 133 is sent to the vehicle 140. The data for the driving route 133 includes any of the driving destination 131, the current location 172 of the vehicle 140, the turn-by-turn navigation of the driving route 133, and the like. In some embodiments, the sending of the data for the driving route 133 to the vehicle 140 is triggered by the mobile device 150 being within a predetermined range of the vehicle), wherein the route information includes at least one destination (see at least ¶[0027], [0038] and [0040]-[0041] regarding the data for the driving route 133 includes any of the driving destination 131, the current location 172 of the vehicle 140, the turn-by-turn navigation of the driving route 133, and the like).
Quint does not explicitly teach receive, from the OBU, a confirmation that the navigation session is resumed or continued by the OBU. However, Couckuyt discloses route transfer between devices and teaches receive, from the OBU, a confirmation that the navigation session is resumed or continued by the OBU (see at least Col. 4, lines 39-61, and Col. 12, lines 31-37, regarding route transfer between user devices and messages can be sent between a device and a system (e.g., vehicle navigation system), such as if a route was successfully received, if the route can be displayed).
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 multi-modal navigation system of Quint to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, receive, from the OBU, a confirmation that the navigation session is resumed or continued by the OBU, as taught by Couckuyt, to provide producing a detailed route that can transition a user between walking and driving. (Couckuyt at Col. 4, lines 33-38)
Regarding claims 16 and 27, Quint teaches the further limitation of output a navigation route for the at least one first destination (see at least ¶[0027], [0031], [0038] and [0040]-[0041] regarding the UI 170 is configured to receive an input for a driving destination 131 and to provide a driving route 133 thereto).
Regarding claims 2 and 21, Quint teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the OBU is associated with an infotainment system (see at least ¶[0028] and [0067] regarding the in-vehicle navigation system 145 is or is part of any control system, infotainment system, and the like of the vehicle 140).
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 22, Quint teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein to establish the communication with the OBU, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to: obtain an indication that the UE is within a communication range of the OBU (see at least ¶[0038]-[0039] regarding a determination is made whether the mobile device 150 is within the predetermined range of the vehicle 140); and advertise a presence of the UE based on the indication (see at least ¶[0034] and [0038]-[0039] regarding an on-screen button 128 can be an icon of a mobile device as well as sending of the data for the driving route 133 to the vehicle 140 is triggered by the mobile device 150 being within a predetermined range of the vehicle 140. The predetermined range can be determined based on the mobile device 150 being within a geofenced area relative to a location of the vehicle 140 or whether the mobile device 150 currently has a short-range radio communication connection currently established with the vehicle 140/the in-vehicle navigation system (i.e., automatically sending data when within range which indicates presence)).
Regarding claim 22, Quint teaches the further limitation of exchange information with the first UE based on the indication (see at least ¶[0027], [0038] and [0040]-[0041] regarding data for the driving route 133 is sent to the vehicle 140. The data for the driving route 133 includes any of the driving destination 131, the current location 172 of the vehicle 140, the turn-by-turn navigation of the driving route 133, and the like. In some embodiments, the sending of the data for the driving route 133 to the vehicle 140 is triggered by the mobile device 150 being within a predetermined range of the vehicle).
Regarding claims 4 and 23, Quint teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the data sharing protocol is a distributed context sharing platform (see at least ¶[0004]-[0007], [0026]-[0029], [0034] and [0041]-[0043] regarding a mobile device and vehicle navigation system communication via a short-range radio communication or other wireless communication protocols, the mobile device and vehicle navigation system both can plan a multi-modal trip that includes both a driving route and a pedestrian route with each leg of the multi-modal trip being provided on the relevant device (i.e., different devices receiving or providing the information for route planning)), and wherein to transmit the route information, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to transmit the route information via at least one message associated with the distributed context sharing platform (see at least ¶[0027], [0038] and [0040]-[0041] regarding data for the driving route 133 is sent to the vehicle 140. The data for the driving route 133 includes any of the driving destination 131, the current location 172 of the vehicle 140, the turn-by-turn navigation of the driving route 133, and the like. In some embodiments, the sending of the data for the driving route 133 to the vehicle 140 is triggered by the mobile device).
Regarding claims 5 and 24, Quint teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the at least one message associated with the distributed context sharing platform is one of: at least one broadcast message; or at least one unicast message (see at least ¶[0027], [0038] and [0040]-[0041] regarding data for the driving route 133 is sent to the vehicle 140. The data for the driving route 133 includes any of the driving destination 131, the current location 172 of the vehicle 140, the turn-by-turn navigation of the driving route 133, and the like. In some embodiments, the sending of the data for the driving route 133 to the vehicle 140 is triggered by the mobile device (i.e., unicast message sent from just one mobile device to the one recipient vehicle system)).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Quint teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein to start the navigation session on the UE, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: receive, from a user of the UE, an input to the at least one destination (see at least ¶[0005]-[0006], [0031], [0038] and [0042] regarding receiving an input for a driving destination); calculate a route for the at least one destination based on the input (see at least ¶[0005]-[0006], [0031], [0038] and [0042] regarding upon receiving a destination input via an in-vehicle navigation system or a mobile device, the method includes determining a multi-modal route including a driving route); and output the calculated route via a display module of the UE (see at least ¶[0007], [0032]-[0039] regarding the pedestrian destination and route being displayed on the UI).
Regarding claims 10 and 25, Quint teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the data sharing protocol is not associated with a central server (see at least ¶[0030], [0035], [0038] and [0044] regarding communication between the in-vehicle navigation system 145 and the mobile device 150 can occur directly, such as via short-range radio communication (e.g. Bluetooth™) or other wireless network protocols (e.g. Wi-Fi), and indirectly, such as via the cloud system 100 over the internet 20 (i.e., through a server)).
Regarding claims 19 and 29, Quint does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: transmit, to the first UE, a first confirmation that the navigation session is resumed or continued by the OBU. However, Couckuyt discloses route transfer between devices and teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: transmit, to the first UE, a first confirmation that the navigation session is resumed or continued by the OBU (see at least Col. 4, lines 39-61, and Col. 12, lines 31-37, regarding route transfer between user devices and messages can be sent between a device and a system (e.g., vehicle navigation system), such as if a route was successfully received, if the route can be displayed).
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 multi-modal navigation system of Quint to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, transmit, to the first UE, a first confirmation that the navigation session is resumed or continued by the OBU, as taught by Couckuyt, to provide producing a detailed route that can transition a user between walking and driving. (Couckuyt at Col. 4, lines 33-38)
Regarding claims 20 and 30, Quint teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein outputting the navigation route for the at least one first destination includes displaying, on a display device, the navigation route for the at least one first destination (see at least ¶[0027], [0031], [0038] and [0040]-[0041] regarding the UI 170 is configured to receive an input for a driving destination 131 and to provide a driving route 133 thereto).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quint et al. (US 20230194270 A1) in view of Couckuyt et al. (US 8060297 B2), as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Miller et al. (US 20220377506 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Quint and Couckuyt does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: terminate or delay the output of the calculated route via the display module based on the reception of the confirmation that the navigation session is resumed or continued by the OBU. However, Miller discloses establishing location sharing sessions and teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: terminate or delay the output of the calculated route via the display module based on the reception of the confirmation that the navigation session is resumed or continued by the OBU (see abstract and at least ¶[0011], [0043] and [0049] regarding ending or buffer time before ending a sharing session when the destination is reached).
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 multi-modal navigation system of Quint as modified by Couckuyt to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: terminate or delay the output of the calculated route via the display module based on the reception of the confirmation, as taught by Miller, to provide an improved user experience by preventing a share duration from expiring prior to a desired event, such as arrival at a destination. (Miller at ¶[0015])
Claim(s) 8-9, 11, 15, 17-18, 26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quint et al. (US 20230194270 A1) in view of Couckuyt et al. (US 8060297 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Harding et al. (US 20170215031 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the combination of Quint and Couckuyt does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: receive, from the OBU, second route information based on the route information and a destination of a second UE. However, Harding discloses sharing navigation data among co-located computing devices and teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: receive, from the OBU, second route information based on the route information and a destination of a second UE (see at least ¶[0063] regarding a new location to replace the pre-existing destination of the second route received by, for example, a passenger device (i.e., second device)).
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 multi-modal navigation system of Quint as modified by Couckuyt to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: receive, from the OBU, second route information based on the route information and a destination of a second UE, as taught by Harding, to provide the passenger's device automatically being able to update the route. (Harding at ¶[0063])
Regarding claim 9, Quint teaches calculate a route for the at least one destination based on a current location of the UE (see at least ¶[0005]-[0006], [0031], [0038] and [0042] regarding upon receiving a destination input via an in-vehicle navigation system or a mobile device, the method includes determining a multi-modal route including a driving route from the current location); and output the calculated route via a display module of the UE (see at least ¶[0007], [0032]-[0039] regarding the pedestrian destination and route being displayed on the UI).
The combination of Quint Couckuyt does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: detect that the communication with the OBU is terminated. However, Harding discloses sharing navigation data among co-located computing devices and teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: detect that the communication with the OBU is terminated (see at least ¶[0046] regarding data being transferred only among co-located devices within the same vehicle).
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 multi-modal navigation system of Quint as modified by Couckuyt to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: detect that the communication with the OBU is unavailable for termination, as taught by Harding, to provide not inadvertently receiving navigation data from the wrong driver's device. (Harding at ¶[0046])
Regarding claims 11 and 26, while Quint implicitly discloses an antenna and/or transceiver due to communication between the in-vehicle navigation system and the mobile device occurring directly, such as via short-range radio communication (e.g. Bluetooth™) or other wireless network protocols (e.g. Wi-Fi) (see at least ¶[0030] of Quint), the combination of Quint and Couckuyt does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising at least one of a transceiver or an antenna coupled to the at least one processor, wherein to transmit the route information, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to transmit the route information via at least one of the transceiver or the antenna. However, Harding discloses sharing navigation data among co-located computing devices and teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising at least one of a transceiver or an antenna coupled to the at least one processor, wherein to transmit the route information, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to transmit the route information via at least one of the transceiver or the antenna (see at least ¶[0086] and [0090]-[0091] regarding a transceiver and the mobile computing device communicating wirelessly).
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 multi-modal navigation system of Quint as modified by Couckuyt to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, further comprising at least one of a transceiver or an antenna coupled to the at least one processor, wherein to transmit the route information, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to transmit the route information via at least one of the transceiver or the antenna, as taught by Harding, to provide short-range communication through a transceiver. (Harding at ¶[0091])
Regarding claims 17 and 28, the combination of Quint and Couckuyt does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: establish a second communication with at least a second UE; receive, from the second UE, second route information based on the established second communication, wherein the second route information is associated with at least one second destination; and prioritize one of the at least one first destination or the least one second destination. However, Harding discloses sharing navigation data among co-located computing devices and teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: establish a second communication with at least a second UE (see at least ¶[0041] and [0043] regarding a driver’s device, a passenger’s device and the vehicle’s integrated computing system as well as the passenger's device may communicate with vehicle system either directly or indirectly); receive, from the second UE, second route information based on the established second communication (see at least ¶[0063] regarding a new location to replace the pre-existing destination of the second route received by, for example, a passenger device (i.e., second device)), wherein the second route information is associated with at least one second destination (see at least ¶[0063] regarding a new location (i.e., second destination) to replace the pre-existing destination of the second route received by, for example, a passenger device (i.e., second device)); and prioritize one of the at least one first destination or the least one second destination (see at least ¶[0036], [0040], [0060] and [0063] regarding updating a route to include a stop along the way (i.e., a destination to arrive to first) which is prioritized as the first stop as well as automatically update the route based on the new parameters set by the passenger on the passenger’s device).
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 multi-modal navigation system of Quint as modified by Couckuyt to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: establish a second communication with at least a second UE; receive, from the second UE, second route information based on the established second communication, wherein the second route information is associated with at least one second destination; and prioritize one of the at least one first destination or the least one second destination, as taught by Harding, to provide automatically updating the route based on the new parameters set by the passenger on the passenger's device so the driver can continue to use his or her device for navigation without the distraction of re-configuring a route while driving. (Harding at ¶[0040])
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Quint and Couckuyt does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 17, wherein to resume or continue the navigation session based on outputting the navigation route for the at least one first destination the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to: resume or continue the navigation session based on outputting the navigation route for the at least one first destination or the at least one second destination based on the prioritization. However, Harding discloses sharing navigation data among co-located computing devices and teaches resume or continue the navigation session based on outputting the navigation route for the at least one first destination or the at least one second destination based on the prioritization (see at least ¶[0036], [0040], [0060] and [0063] regarding updating a route to include a stop along the way (i.e., a destination to arrive to first) which is prioritized as the first stop as well as automatically update the route based on the new parameters set by the passenger on the passenger’s device).
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 multi-modal navigation system of Quint as modified by Couckuyt to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to: resume or continue the navigation session based on outputting the navigation route for the at least one first destination or the at least one second destination based on the prioritization, as taught by Harding, to provide automatically updating the route based on the new parameters set by the passenger on the passenger's device so the driver can continue to use his or her device for navigation without the distraction of re-configuring a route while driving. (Harding at ¶[0040])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Schunder (US 8731814 B2) is pertinent because it is a multi-modal navigation system and method.
Lowe et al. (US 20200355509 A1) is pertinent because it is a navigation guidance session to a destination.
Cuddihy et al. (US 20180180424 A1) is pertinent because it is a method of in-vehicle tracking that may begin with establishing a communication link between a mobile device and a navigation system of a vehicle.
Thanayankizil et al. (US 20160270144 A1) is pertinent because it is a communication system that includes a vehicle and a mobile device, and a method of continuing a mirroring session between the mobile device and a display in the vehicle.
Langlois et al. (US 20140280580 A1) is pertinent because it is a method, device, and a vehicle information system are provided for persisting application context from the mobile device to the vehicle information system.
Tang et al. (US 20120131212 A1) is pertinent because it is a method of operation of a navigation system.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor L Knight whose telephone number is (571)272-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/C.L.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights