DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is responsive to the following communication: Amended Claims, Specification Amendment, and Remarks, filed on February 5, 2026. Claims 1-13 are pending in the case; Claims 1, 12, and 13 are independent claims; Claims 1, 2, 10, 12, and 13 are amended. This action is made final.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 5, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on September 5, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
3. In the Non-Final Rejection mailed on September 5, 2025, Claims 1 and 3-13 were rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over prior art of record (see Non-Final Rejection, pgs. 3-13); it was indicated that Dependent Claim 2 was objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (Claim 1) and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (see Non-Final Rejection, pg. 13). In the Amended Claims filed on February 5, 2026, Claim 1 was amended to recite “and in response to detecting that a position of a user of the electronic device is within a threshold distance of the first portion of the route or the second portion of the route,” which does not appear to rewrite Claim 2 in independent form (in the Remarks filed on February 5, 2026 (hereinafter Remarks), see pg. 12, Applicant points to Paragraph 0161 for support, but this paragraph describes obtaining additional map data for an indication that is within a threshold distance of the route, but does not support detecting the user’s position within a threshold distance from the first or second portion of the route (it appears that Paragraph 0163 provides a more proper support for the amendment – “In some embodiments, the electronic device 500 obtains map data within a threshold distance of a current position of the electronic device 500 while navigating along a route and/or within a threshold distance of the route before device 500 actually reaches that portion of the route.”); instead, amended Claim 1 now introduces ambiguities necessitating § 112 rejections, as discussed below.
Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks, pgs. 11-12) with respect to § 103 rejections of independent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the § 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Hamilton, as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
(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.
4. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent Claim 1 (and similarly, independent Claims 12 and 13), as amended, now recites “while the navigation along the route is initiated and before the navigation along the route reaches the first portion of the route or the second portion of the route, and in response to detecting that a position of a user of the electronic device is within a threshold distance of the first portion of the route or the second portion of the route: …,” but the amended limitation was not sufficiently described in the instant Specification.
Paragraph 0163 (corresponding to ¶ 0207 of published application US 2024/0102821 A1) states that “In some embodiments, the electronic device 500 obtains map data within a threshold distance of a current position of the electronic device 500 while navigating along a route and/or within a threshold distance of the route before device 500 actually reaches that portion of the route,” but does not appear to support a determination that the user’s position is within a threshold distance of the first or second portion of the route, as recited in the amended claim. Paragraph 0178 (corresponding to ¶ 0222 of published application) further supports determining that the current position of the user is within a threshold distance of the first portion of the route, but similarly, does not appear to suggest that such determination is based on threshold distance of the first or second portion of the route, as recited in the amended claim.
Dependent claims do not appear to cure the deficiencies of the respective independent claims, thus they are also rejected under the same rationale.
5. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 1 (and similarly, independent Claims 12 and 13), as amended, now recites “while the navigation along the route is initiated and before the navigation along the route reaches the first portion of the route or the second portion of the route, and in response to detecting that a position of a user of the electronic device is within a threshold distance of the first portion of the route or the second portion of the route: …,” but it is not clear how such limitation is intended to be interpreted since it appears that a requirement for downloading the first and/or second map data can be met when the user device is within a threshold distance of the first and/or second portion of the route (stated differently, it appears that the amended claim can be interpreted as reading on downloading the first map data when the user’s position is within a threshold distance of the second portion of the route, even if that occurs after the first portion of the route is travelled); it is also not clear if the 2nd map data is downloaded in response to the position of the electronic device being within a threshold distance of the first portion of the route. Dependent claims do not appear to cure the deficiencies of the respective independent claims, thus they are also rejected under the same rationale.
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruikar, US 2019/0277651 A1, published on September 12, 2019, in view of Hamilton, US 2008/0132249 A1, published on June 5, 2008.
With respect to independent Claim 1, Ruikar teaches a method comprising: at an electronic device in communication with one or more input devices and a display generation component (see Fig. 5):
receiving, via the one or more input devices, user input initiating navigation along a route, wherein the route includes a first portion of the route that is within a first geographic region and a second portion of the route that is within a second geographic region, different from the first geographic region (see Figs. 1, 2 (elements 210, 240-260), and 3, ¶¶ 0014, 0020, 0028, showing that a route is selected based on a starting position and a destination, and that a selected route comprises a plurality of map segments that belong to different geographic regions (i.e., a region with a particular network coverage)).
…
while the navigation along the route is initiated and before the navigation along the route reaches the first portion of the route or the second portion of the route … (see ¶¶ 0013, 0016):
in accordance with a determination that the first portion of the route satisfies one or more criteria (see ¶¶ 0023, 0028):
transmitting a first request for first map data associated with the first portion of the route; and after transmitting the first request for the first map data, receiving the first map data associated with the first portion of the route (see Fig. 2 (elements 250-260), ¶¶ 0016, 0025, showing that a plurality of regions with insufficient coverage can be identified and that corresponding map data is downloaded for each of them).
in accordance with a determination that the second portion of the route satisfies the one or more criteria (see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0013, 0016, note that multiple portions of the route can intersect areas with limited coverage):
transmitting a second request for second map data associated with the second portion of the route; and after transmitting the second request for the second map data, receiving the second map data associated with the second portion of the route (see Fig. 2 (elements 250-260), ¶¶ 0016, 0025);
while the navigation along the route is initiated:
in accordance with a determination that a position of a user of the electronic device corresponds to the first portion of the route:
in accordance with a determination that the electronic device has received the first map data associated with the first portion of the route, continuing navigation using the received first map data; and in accordance with a determination that the electronic device has not received the first map data associated with the first portion of the route, receiving third map data streaming to the electronic device and continuing navigation using the third map data (see ¶ 0026, showing that a downloaded segment is used when the mobile device reaches the corresponding region, and further showing that the downloaded segments (if they exist) can be used regardless of the actual signal in the corresponding area, or that they are used only if the signal is insufficient in the corresponding area).
in accordance with a determination that the position of the user of the electronic device corresponds to the second portion of the route:
in accordance with a determination that the electronic device has received the second map data associated with the second portion of the route, continuing navigation using the received second map data; and in accordance with a determination that the electronic device has not received the second map data associated with second portion of the route, receiving fourth map data, different from the third map data, streaming to the electronic device and continuing navigation using the fourth map data (see ¶ 0026, showing that a downloaded segment is used when the mobile device reaches the corresponding region; in addition, a skilled artisan would understand that for areas/segments which do not have the pre-download map data, the mobile device would request the corresponding map data when (or just before) entering a given segment, as is well-known in the art (see ¶ 0012)).
While Ruikar does not appear to explicitly recite in response to receiving the user input initiating the navigation along the route, initiating the navigation along the route, a skilled artisan would understand that this is a basic functionality of navigation apps that Ruikar is improving on – Ruikar discusses selecting a route and further suggests that map data is proactively acquired before the mobile device reaches the corresponding areas (i.e., while the device is navigating), and further responding to route changes (i.e., while navigating) (see ¶¶ 0013, 0018, 0042, 0051).
While Ruikar does not appear to explicitly teach in response to detecting that a position of a user of the electronic device is within a threshold distance of the first portion of the route or the second portion of the route (but see § 112 rejections, above), Ruikar clearly suggests that the corresponding map data is downloaded before reaching the corresponding region, but a skilled artisan would understand that a particular threshold distance from the corresponding region can trigger the download, as disclosed by Hamilton. Hamilton is directed towards local caching of map data based on carrier coverage data (see Hamilton, Title). Similarly to Ruikar, Hamilton discloses downloading map data for a location with no service in advance (see Hamilton, Figs. 4, 5, 7, ¶ 0032). Ruikar discloses that a download for a particular zone can be triggered by a determination that the user’s device is in a “transition zone,” and that such “transition zones” (i.e., distance thresholds) can be customized for each user (see Figs. 5-6 (element 50), ¶ 0030). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation for success, to utilize the transition zones of Hamilton when determining when to download the map data in Ruikar in order to ensure that the map data is downloaded in time, while the signal is sufficiently strong/available, and to conserve bandwidth by downloading only the necessary data (i.e., to not download the data for every region at once and to accommodate for routing changes during the navigation).
With respect to independent Claims 12 and 13, these claims are directed to an electronic device and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising steps and/or features similar to those recited in Claim 1, and are thus rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 1, above.
With respect to dependent Claim 3, Ruikar in view of Hamilton discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses while the navigation along the route is initiated: in accordance with the determination that the position of the user of the electronic device corresponds to the first portion of the route and in accordance with the determination that the electronic device has received the first map data associated with the first portion of the route, displaying, via the display generation component, a visual indication indicative of the use of the received first map data to continue the navigation (see Ruikar, ¶ 0026; note that “visual indication” is broadly recited in the claim and that further clarification is needed if the intent is to interpret this term as “element 614” of instant Fig. 6D, rather than just a visual representation of a stored map segment).
With respect to dependent Claim 6, Ruikar in view of Hamilton discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein a respective POI is associated with the first portion of the route, the method further comprising: while the navigation along the route is initiated: receiving, via the one or more input devices, a first input corresponding to a request to view information associated with the respective POI; and in response to receiving, via the one or more input devices, the first input: in accordance with the determination that the electronic device has received the first map data, displaying, via the display generation component, the information associated with the respective POI using the first map data; and in accordance with the determination that the electronic device has not received the first map data, displaying, via the display generation component, the information associated with the respective POI using the third map data streaming to the electronic device (see Ruikar, ¶¶ 0016, 0024, 0051, showing that other information for POIs along the route can be pre-fetched as well in anticipation of insufficient signal – while Ruikar suggests “other apps” performing the download and presenting this additional information, a skilled artisan would understand that a navigation app, such as Google maps, Apple maps, etc. (see ¶ 0011) integrate the “other apps” functionality in order to allow the user to interact with POIs along the route and/or to select an appropriate destination/stop point; it follows that Ruikar at least suggests downloading offline data for POIs along the route, and using such data when needed (see also ¶ 0026)).
With respect to dependent Claim 9, Ruikar in view of Hamilton discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses while the navigation along the route is initiated and while the position of the user corresponds to the first portion of the route and the first portion of the route satisfies the one or more criteria, receiving, via the one or more input devices, a first input adding navigation toward a respective POI associated with the first portion of the route to the navigation along the route; and in response to receiving, via the one or more input devices, the first input, modifying the navigation along the route to include navigation toward the respective POI (see Ruikar, ¶ 0018).
With respect to dependent Claim 11, Ruikar in view of Hamilton discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the one or more criteria include a criterion that is satisfied based on one or more characteristics of a respective portion of a communication network of the electronic device along a respective portion of the route (see Ruikar, ¶¶ 0017, 0023).
7. Claims 4, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruikar in view of Hamilton, and further in view of Kalai et al. (hereinafter Kalai), US 2013/0147820 A1, published on June 13, 2013.
With respect to dependent Claim 4, Ruikar in view of Hamilton discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and while Ruikar appears to suggest wherein the first map data includes data for one or more points of interest (POI) that satisfy one or more second criteria, including a criterion that is satisfied when the one or more POI are within a threshold distance of the first portion of the route (see Ruikar, ¶¶ 0016, 0024, 0051, showing that other information for POIs along the route can be pre-fetched as well in anticipation of insufficient signal; see also discussion of Claim 6, above), the teachings of Kalai can be relied upon for an explicit suggestion of this feature.
Kalai is directed towards pre-fetching of map data for rendering and offline routing (see Kalai, Title, Abstract). Kalai recognizes a need to pre-fetch map data in order to allow the mapping application to provide functions or services when offline (see Kalai, ¶ 0031). Kalai teaches that map data around a given route (or portions thereof) is pre-fetched and further suggests that for particular points/areas a more detailed map information may be desired (see Kalai, ¶¶ 0048, 0051, 0054, 0059-60). Kalai explicitly suggests that a point of interest along the route may be assigned a higher priority and that additional map data can be pre-fetched for the area comprising such point of interest (see Figs. 11A-B, ¶¶ 0059-61).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, at the time the instant application was filed, to incorporate the pre-fetching techniques described in Kalai into offline map data being downloaded in Ruikar in view of Hamilton in order to manage the amount of data being downloaded and stored in the most efficient manner and to ensure that the desired map data is available when needed (see Kalai, ¶¶ 0004, 0006-07, 0031).
With respect to dependent Claim 5, Ruikar in view of Hamilton and Kalai suggests the method of claim 4, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the one or more second criteria include a criterion that is satisfied based on one or more factors associated with a communication network of the electronic device in areas between the one or more POI and the first portion of the route (see Ruikar, ¶¶ 0017, 0023, see Kalai, ¶ 0031).
With respect to dependent Claim 10, Ruikar in view of Hamilton discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and while Ruikar does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a respective portion of the route is within a respective threshold distance of a destination of the route, the teachings of Kalai can be relied upon for an explicit suggestion of this feature.
Kalai is directed towards pre-fetching of map data for rendering and offline routing (see Kalai, Title, Abstract). Kalai recognizes a need to pre-fetch map data in order to allow the mapping application to provide functions or services when offline (see Kalai, ¶ 0031). Kalai teaches that map data around a given route (or portions thereof) is pre-fetched and further suggests that for particular points/areas a more detailed map information may be desired (see Kalai, ¶¶ 0048, 0051, 0054, 0059-60). Kalai explicitly suggests that a point of interest along the route, including the region surrounding the destination, may be assigned a higher priority and that additional map data can be pre-fetched for the area comprising such point of interest (see Figs. 11A-B, ¶¶ 0059-61).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, at the time the instant application was filed, to incorporate the pre-fetching techniques described in Kalai into offline map data being downloaded in Ruikar in view of Hamilton in order to manage the amount of data being downloaded and stored in the most efficient manner and to ensure that the desired map data is available when needed (see Kalai, ¶¶ 0004, 0006-07, 0031).
8. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruikar in view of Hamilton, and further in view of Coleman et al. (hereinafter Coleman), US 2018/0348010 A1, published on December 6, 2018.
With respect to dependent Claim 7, Ruikar in view of Hamilton discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, but Ruikar in view of Hamilton does not appear to explicitly discuss wherein the first map data and the second map data include information associated with a history of traffic along the first portion of the route and the second portion of the route, respectively. However, the teachings of Coleman can be relied upon for a suggestion of this feature.
Coleman is directed towards presenting suggested routes based on local route ranking (see Coleman, Title, Abstract). Coleman suggests that stored map data can also include other data from map service, such as historical speed and/or traffic data for a route, in order to provide map/navigation functionality when user device is offline (see Coleman, ¶¶ 0027, 0032, 0050, 0055-56). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, at the time the instant application was filed, to incorporate the route information described in Coleman into offline map data being downloaded in Ruikar in view of Hamilton in order to expand the functionality that is available to the user when the navigation device is offline and to present a better recommendation to the user (see Coleman, ¶¶ 0002, 0027, 0081).
With respect to dependent Claim 8, Ruikar in view of Hamilton discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, but Ruikar in view of Hamilton does not appear to explicitly discuss wherein the first map data and the second map data include information associated with one or more route closures along the route present at a time the user input initiating the navigation along the route is received. However, the teachings of Coleman can be relied upon for a suggestion of this feature.
Coleman is directed towards presenting suggested routes based on local route ranking (see Coleman, Title, Abstract). Coleman suggests that stored map data can also include other data from map service, such as historical speed and/or traffic data for a route, in order to provide map/navigation functionality when user device is offline (see Coleman, ¶¶ 0027, 0032, 0050, 0055-56; see also ¶¶ 0206, 0239). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, at the time the instant application was filed, to incorporate the route information described in Coleman into offline map data being downloaded in Ruikar in view of Hamilton in order to expand the functionality that is available to the user when the navigation device is offline and to present a better recommendation to the user (see Coleman, ¶¶ 0002, 0027, 0081).
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as set forth in this Office Action. As discussed in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on September 5, 2025, the prior art of record does not appear to disclose or suggest when “the position of the user of the electronic device is within the threshold distance of the first portion of the route … display … a selectable option that is selectable to transmit the first request for the first map data” and “in response to receiving [the input via the selectable option] … performing the transmitting of the first request for the first map data associated with the first portion of the route.”
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights