DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Amendment dated 27 May 2026. Claims 1, 2 and 8-10 are amended. Claim 7 has been cancelled. Claims 11-13 have been added. Claims 1-6 and 8-13 remain pending and have been considered below.
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 .
Examiner’s Suggestion
Examiner suggests moving the content of dependent claim 2 into the independent claims while further clarifying that the interaction with a navigation chart is performed by the user performing a pointing action in the navigation chart region along with a step for detecting that a user has started to enter text into the text entry region in order to enter the specific pointing mode.
Response to Amendment
Based on applicant’s amendment, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is withdrawn.
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 1-6 and 8-13 are 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 1 and 9 recite the limitation “the region in question”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The dependent claims are rejected for incorporating the deficiencies of their base claims.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suddreth et al. (US 2010/0131481 A1) in view of Goldstein et al. (US 12,001,499 B1).
As for independent claim 1, Suddreth teaches a method comprising:
pointing actions in respect of a display on a screen of a human-machine interface of a cockpit of an aircraft, the display comprising regions including: [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraphs 0023, 0024) ”the display device 102 is located within a cockpit of the aircraft 112 … the user interface device 104 may be realized as a … mouse”].
a text entry region; a navigation chart region; and at least one other region [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraphs 0029, 0038 and Fig. 6) ”as shown in FIG. 3, in addition to a navigational window 202, the processor 106 and/or flight management system 108 may be cooperatively configured to render or otherwise graphically display a flight plan 300 (or waypoint list) in a separate window 302 (e.g., a flight planning window). It should be appreciated that, in practice, numerous possible configurations and combinations of windows are possible, and the subject matter described herein is not intended to limited to any particular arrangement. For example, the processor 106 and/or flight management system 108 may be cooperatively configured to render or otherwise graphically display information relating to the operating status of the aircraft 112 (e.g., an environmental control window 304) … as shown in FIG. 6, a search field 600 may be shown overlying the windows 202, 302, 304 along with text 602 to indicate the search mode”].
each region being associated with commands that can be activated by performing a pointing action in the region [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraphs 0024, 0033) ”one or more windows displayed on the display device may each include any number of selectable items, objects, fields, and/or other elements which are currently displayed in the window(s) on the display device … the user interface device 104 may be realized as a … mouse”].
such that: when the controller determines it is in normal pointing mode, a first pointing action in a region triggers a command in response to there being any command associated with a location where the first pointing action is carried out in the region in question [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraph 0033) ”one or more windows displayed on the display device may each include any number of selectable items, objects, fields, and/or other elements which are currently displayed in the window(s) on the display device. In an exemplary embodiment, if an item in the window has been selected, the display system 100 responds in a conventional manner”]. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations. The phrases “when the controller determines it is in normal pointing mode” and “when the controller determines it is in specific pointing mode” are contingent limitations as the independent method claim never positively recites or establishes that the user actually begins to enter text (i.e. if the user never enters text then specific pointing mode is never activated in the method and only normal pointing mode would be used).
when the controller determines it is in specific pointing mode, a second pointing action in the text entry region or in the navigation chart region triggers the command in response to there being any command associated with the location where the second pointing action is carried out in the region in question, and a third pointing action in the at least one other region triggers abandonment of text entry, the commands of the at least one other region being deactivated conversely to the commands of the text entry region and of the navigation chart region [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraphs 0033, 0035, 0041) ”the automatic search process 400 initializes by receiving a user input when no selectable item, object, field, and/or other element is selected in a window displayed on the display device (task 402). For example, one or more windows displayed on the display device may each include any number of selectable items, objects, fields, and/or other elements which are currently displayed in the window(s) on the display device. In an exemplary embodiment, if an item in the window has been selected, the display system 100 responds in a conventional manner without continuing execution of automatic search process 400, as will be appreciated in the art. In this manner, the automatic search process 400 continues only when certain items, objects, fields, and/or other elements currently displayed in the windows on the display device are in an inactive state. That is, a user has not activated and/or selected any currently displayed item, object, field, and/or other element, or if the user has previously activated and/or selected any currently displayed item, the process and/or program associated with the activation and/or selection has timed out or expired, as will be understood in the art. In this manner, if no items, objects, fields, and/or other elements are selected … In response to receiving the user input when no item is selected, the automatic search process 400 continues by determining a search context that identifies or designates the window(s) and/or processes for searching (task 404). As described in greater detail below, the search context determines how the automatic search process 400 responds to the received user input depending on the status of the display system. The search context may designate one or more windows for searching for the user input, or designate only an active or focused window (or the current window) … the search context designates an active window or a particular window or process, such as navigational window 202, the processor 106 may render or display a search field 500 (e.g., a text box or text entry field) … the automatic search process 400 may … otherwise exit and terminate the process (task 410)”]. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations. The phrases “when the controller determines it is in normal pointing mode” and “when the controller determines it is in specific pointing mode” are contingent limitations as the independent method claim never positively recites or establishes that the user actually begins to enter text (i.e. if the user never enters text then specific pointing mode is never activated in the method and only normal pointing mode would be used).
Suddreth does not specifically teach a controller of the human-machine interface configured to implement two pointing modes, wherein the two pointing modes include a specific pointing mode, which is active in response to text entry being in progress in the text entry region, and a normal pointing mode, which is active in response to no text entry being in progress in the text entry region, such that:. However, in the same field of invention, Goldstein teaches:
a controller of the human-machine interface configured to implement two pointing modes, wherein the two pointing modes include a specific pointing mode, which is active in response to text entry being in progress in the text entry region, and a normal pointing mode, which is active in response to no text entry being in progress in the text entry region, such that: [(e.g. see Goldstein col 5 lines 34-35, 42-53, 57-61, col 7 lines 1-22) ”A pointer 112 can be employed in connection with selecting graphical elements displayed in the GUI 100, where position of the pointer 112 is based upon a corresponding position of a mouse … the text entry field 108 and the graphical icon 110 are selectable through use of the pointer 112. As will be described in greater detail herein, different content can be presented to the user on the display depending upon whether the text entry field 108 or the graphical icon 110 is selected … the pointer 112 is positioned over the text entry field 108 and employed in connection with selecting the text entry field 108. Selection of the text entry field 108 can be detected by ascertaining that the pointer 112 is hovered over the text entry field 108 for some threshold amount of time … the text entry field 108 is activated to receive textual input … upon selection of the text entry field 108 of the search box 106 being detected, first content is presented in the first graphical pane 202 in the GUI 200 of the operating system of the computing device … the pointer 112 is positioned over the graphical icon 110 in the search box 106, and the graphical icon 110 is detected as being selected. For example, the computing device can detect that the graphical icon 110 has been selected based upon the pointer 112 hovering over the graphical icon 110 for a threshold amount of time … Upon selection of the graphical icon 110 being detected, the computing device presents a second graphical pane 302 in the GUI 300, where the second graphical pane 302 includes second content that is different from the first content shown in the first graphical pane 202 (FIG. 2). Therefore, different content is presented depending upon whether the text entry field 108 or the graphical icon 110 is detected as being selected”]. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
Therefore, considering the teachings of Suddreth and Goldstein, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a controller of the human-machine interface configured to implement two pointing modes, wherein the two pointing modes include a specific pointing mode, which is active in response to text entry being in progress in the text entry region, and a normal pointing mode, which is active in response to no text entry being in progress in the text entry region, such that:, as taught by Goldstein, to the teachings of Suddreth because it allows different content to be presented based on the pointer positioning (e.g. see Goldstein col 5 lines 43-53).
As for dependent claim 2, Suddreth and Goldstein teach the method as described in claim 1 and Suddreth further teaches:
wherein, in specific pointing mode, the controller assigns focus both to the text entry region and to the navigation chart region, to allow a user to perform steps of: [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraphs 0035, 0038 and Fig. 5) ”The search context may designate one or more windows for searching for the user input, or designate only an active or focused window (or the current window). In an exemplary embodiment, based on the search context, the automatic search process 400 indicates a graphically indicates a search mode (e.g., by displaying a text entry field or search field) in response to the user input, and provides the user input to one or more windows and/or processes … the processor 106 receives an input signal from the user interface device 104 indicative of a user input, and in response graphically indicates the search mode on the display device 102. In other words, the automatic search process 400 may graphically indicate that the search functionality associated with one or more windows and/or processes is (or will be) activated based upon the received user input, even though the user has not manually selected a search mode or search function for a window and/or process. In accordance with one embodiment, the automatic search process 400 indicates the search mode in a manner that is influenced by the search context. For example, as shown in FIG. 5, if the search context designates an active window or a particular window or process, such as navigational window 202, the processor 106 may render or display a search field 500 (e.g., a text box or text entry field)”].
entering text in the text entry region [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraph 0038) ”As shown, the user input `K` is replicated in the search field 500. That is, characters entered as a result of typing and/or keystrokes by a user are reproduced in the search field as they are entered”].
interacting, by the human-machine interface, with a navigation chart in the navigation chart region without losing information already entered in the text entry region [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraphs 0043, 0044 and Fig. 7) ”if multiple items in satisfy the user input, the automatic search process 400 may render and/or display a list of the items such that a user may select the desired item from the list … if the window is a navigational window and the location of the element corresponds to a location on the navigational map that is beyond the currently displayed region to the right, the automatic search process 400 may scroll the navigational window to the right (e.g., the navigational map shifts right to left) until the element is positioned within the window as desired”].
continuing text entry in the text entry region without needing to carry out any specific action before continuing text entry [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraphs 0038, 0039, 0041 and Figs. 5-7) ”the search context designates an active window or a particular window or process, such as navigational window 202, the processor 106 may render or display a search field 500 (e.g., a text box or text entry field). In an exemplary embodiment, the automatic search process 400 replicates the user input as received within the search field in the designated window. As shown, the user input `K` is replicated in the search field 500. That is, characters entered as a result of typing and/or keystrokes by a user are reproduced in the search field as they are entered … the automatic search process 400 searches automatically as the user input is received, that is, the automatic search process 400 searches without the user manually initiating the search (e.g., by hitting ENTER or graphically selecting the equivalent thereof). In this regard, the automatic search process 400 may be adapted to display a list of partial matches corresponding to elements in the database that satisfy and/or match a partial user input … the user input (e.g., `KDCA`) matches or otherwise identifies an element in a navigational database”].
As for dependent claim 3, Suddreth and Goldstein teach the method as described in claim 1 and Suddreth further teaches:
wherein the controller assigns a keyboard of the human-machine interface specifically to text entry in specific pointing mode and assigns the keyboard to a general use of the human-machine interface in normal pointing mode [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraphs 0034, 0038 and Figs. 5 and 6) ”the automatic search process 400 receives a user input in the form of an alphanumeric and/or textual input via the user interface device 104 (e.g., via a keyboard … the automatic search process 400 may graphically indicate that the search functionality associated with one or more windows and/or processes is (or will be) activated based upon the received user input, even though the user has not manually selected a search mode or search function for a window and/or process. In accordance with one embodiment, the automatic search process 400 indicates the search mode in a manner that is influenced by the search context. For example, as shown in FIG. 5, if the search context designates an active window or a particular window or process, such as navigational window 202, the processor 106 may render or display a search field 500 (e.g., a text box or text entry field) … if the search context designates more than one currently displayed window or the entire system, the processor 106 may render or display a search field or text box overlying one or more windows (e.g., in the center of the display device 102). For example, as shown in FIG. 6, a search field 600 may be shown overlying the windows 202, 302, 304 along with text 602 to indicate the search mode”].
As for dependent claim 4, Suddreth and Goldstein teach the method as described in claim 1, but Suddreth does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Goldstein teaches:
wherein, when abandonment of text entry is triggered, any information that has been entered into the text entry region but not validated is recorded in an entry history, an entry history access functionality being activated in specific pointing mode by not in normal pointing mode [(e.g. see Goldstein col 7 lines 15-22, 47-51) ”Upon selection of the graphical icon 110 being detected, the computing device presents a second graphical pane 302 in the GUI 300, where the second graphical pane 302 includes second content that is different from the first content shown in the first graphical pane 202 (FIG. 2). Therefore, different content is presented depending upon whether the text entry field 108 or the graphical icon 110 is detected as being selected … in contrast to the query suggestions 220-226 (FIG. 2) included in the first graphical pane 202, the query suggestions 310-320 can alter over time and may not have been previously submitted to a search engine by the user of the computing device”]. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 5, Suddreth and Goldstein teach the method as described in claim 4, but Suddreth does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Goldstein teaches:
wherein any information that has been entered into the text entry region and validated is also recorded in the entry history [(e.g. see Goldstein col 6 lines 36-39 and Fig. 2) ”the query suggestions 220-226 may include queries previously set forth in the text entry field 108 by the user of the computing device”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 6, Suddreth and Goldstein teach the method as described in claim 4, but Suddreth does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Goldstein teaches:
wherein when the entry history access functionality is activated, the text entry region is expanded to display the entry history to partially overlap a region that is inactive in specific pointing mode [(e.g. see Goldstein col 5 line 54 – col 6 line 39 and Figs. 1 and 2) ”Now referring to FIG. 2, a GUI 200 of the operating system of the computing device is depicted, where the GUI 200 corresponds to user-selection of the text entry field 108 in the taskbar 102. As illustrated in FIG. 2, the pointer 112 is positioned over the text entry field 108 and employed in connection with selecting the text entry field 108. Selection of the text entry field 108 can be detected by ascertaining that the pointer 112 is hovered over the text entry field 108 for some threshold amount of time … Upon selection of the text entry field 108 being detected, a first graphical pane 202 is presented in the GUI 200 of the operating system (and displayed on the display of the computing device). The first graphical pane 202 includes first content … The first content included in the first graphical pane 202 can further comprise query suggestions 220-226 … the query suggestions 220-226 may include queries previously set forth in the text entry field 108 by the user of the computing device”]. Due to the conditional nature of this claim limitation present within a method claim, this limitation carries no patentable weight while giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claimed invention can be practiced without the first condition occurring. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations.
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 8, Suddreth and Goldstein teach a non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium storing a computer program comprising program code instructions that cause the method according to claim 1 to be implemented when the instructions are read and executed by a processor of a human-machine interface of a cockpit of an aircraft. Claim 8 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As for independent claim 9, Suddreth and Goldstein teach a device. Claim 9 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As for dependent claim 10, Suddreth and Goldstein teach the device as described in claim 9; further, claim 10 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 2.
As for dependent claim 11, Suddreth and Goldstein teach the method as described in claim 2 and Suddreth further teaches:
wherein assigning focus includes the text entry region and the navigation entry region remaining both active simultaneously such that an interaction in the navigation chart region does not cause loss of focus from the text entry region [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraphs 0035, 0038) ”The search context may designate one or more windows for searching for the user input, or designate only an active or focused window (or the current window). In an exemplary embodiment, based on the search context, the automatic search process 400 indicates a graphically indicates a search mode (e.g., by displaying a text entry field or search field) in response to the user input, and provides the user input to one or more windows and/or processes … the search context designates an active window or a particular window or process, such as navigational window 202, the processor 106 may render or display a search field 500 (e.g., a text box or text entry field)”].
As for dependent claim 12, Suddreth and Goldstein teach the method as described in claim 2 and Suddreth further teaches:
wherein interacting with the navigation chart in the navigation chart region includes at least one of zooming into the navigation chart or panning over the navigation chart [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraph 0044) ”If the corresponding location of the element is such that the element is not within the area currently shown in the window, the automatic search process 400 may graphically identify the element by scrolling the window such that the graphical representation of the element is displayed in the window. For example, if the window is a navigational window and the location of the element corresponds to a location on the navigational map that is beyond the currently displayed region to the right, the automatic search process 400 may scroll the navigational window to the right (e.g., the navigational map shifts right to left) until the element is positioned within the window as desired. In accordance with one embodiment, the window is adjusted or scrolled such that the element is in the center of the navigational map. In this example, scrolling the navigational window and/or navigational map provides situational awareness by allowing a user (e.g., a pilot) to ascertain the location of the element relative to the current location of the aircraft 112”].
As for dependent claim 13, Suddreth and Goldstein teach the method as described in claim 2 and Suddreth further teaches:
wherein continuing text entry in the text entry region does not require a move of a cursor and to click in the text entry region before continuing text entry [(e.g. see Suddreth paragraphs 0038, 0039, 0041 and Figs. 5-7) ”the search context designates an active window or a particular window or process, such as navigational window 202, the processor 106 may render or display a search field 500 (e.g., a text box or text entry field). In an exemplary embodiment, the automatic search process 400 replicates the user input as received within the search field in the designated window. As shown, the user input `K` is replicated in the search field 500. That is, characters entered as a result of typing and/or keystrokes by a user are reproduced in the search field as they are entered … the automatic search process 400 searches automatically as the user input is received, that is, the automatic search process 400 searches without the user manually initiating the search (e.g., by hitting ENTER or graphically selecting the equivalent thereof). In this regard, the automatic search process 400 may be adapted to display a list of partial matches corresponding to elements in the database that satisfy and/or match a partial user input … the user input (e.g., `KDCA`) matches or otherwise identifies an element in a navigational database”].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 27 May 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that [“Applicant has amended claim 1 to remove the allegedly conditional language, and therefore, these features should be given patentable weight … Suddreth and Goldstein fails to disclose at least ‘a third pointing action in the at least one other region triggers abandonment of text entry, the commands of the at least one other region being deactivated conversely to the commands of the text entry region and of the navigation chart region.’ of pending claim 1,” (Pages 7-10).].
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The phrases “when the controller determines it is in normal pointing mode” and “when the controller determines it is in specific pointing mode” are contingent limitations as the independent method claim never positively recites or establishes that the user actually begins to enter text (i.e. if the user never enters text then specific pointing mode is never activated in the method and only normal pointing mode would be used). Suddreth teaches a third pointing action in the at least one other region triggers abandonment of text entry, the commands of the at least one other region being deactivated conversely to the commands of the text entry region and of the navigation chart region in paragraphs 0033, 0035, 0041 of Suddreth’s disclosure [(see rejection of claim 1 above)]. One of ordinary skill in the art, namely a software developer, would recognize that the automatic search process can render a search field accepting textual input and set a particular window as active/focused (e.g. the navigation window) which would conversely set the other windows as inactive and selection of an element of the other windows causes a response by the system in a conventional manner without continuing execution of automatic search process (i.e. ends the search process). Thus, the combination adequately teaches applicant’s claimed limitation.
Applicant argues that [“the combination of Suddreth and Goldstein fails to disclose at least the features ‘the controller assigns focus to both the text entry region and the navigation chart region’ and ‘continuing text entry in the text entry region without needing to carry out any specific action before continuing text entry’ of claim 2.” (Pages 11-13).].
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Suddreth teaches the controller assigns focus to both the text entry region and the navigation chart region in paragraphs 0035, 0038 and Fig. 5 of Suddreth’s disclosure [“The search context may designate one or more windows for searching for the user input, or designate only an active or focused window (or the current window). In an exemplary embodiment, based on the search context, the automatic search process 400 indicates a graphically indicates a search mode (e.g., by displaying a text entry field or search field) in response to the user input, and provides the user input to one or more windows and/or processes … the search context designates an active window or a particular window or process, such as navigational window 202, the processor 106 may render or display a search field 500 (e.g., a text box or text entry field)”]. One of ordinary skill in the art, namely a software developer, would recognize that the search field is rendered and accepting textual input while the navigation window is designated as active/focused for the search context. Suddreth teaches continuing text entry in the text entry region without needing to carry out any specific action before continuing text entry in paragraphs 0038, 0039, 0041, 0044 and Figs. 5-7 of Suddreth’s disclosure [“the search context designates an active window or a particular window or process, such as navigational window 202, the processor 106 may render or display a search field 500 (e.g., a text box or text entry field). In an exemplary embodiment, the automatic search process 400 replicates the user input as received within the search field in the designated window. As shown, the user input `K` is replicated in the search field 500. That is, characters entered as a result of typing and/or keystrokes by a user are reproduced in the search field as they are entered … the automatic search process 400 searches automatically as the user input is received, that is, the automatic search process 400 searches without the user manually initiating the search (e.g., by hitting ENTER or graphically selecting the equivalent thereof). In this regard, the automatic search process 400 may be adapted to display a list of partial matches corresponding to elements in the database that satisfy and/or match a partial user input … the user input (e.g., `KDCA`) matches or otherwise identifies an element in a navigational database”]. One of ordinary skill in the art, namely a software developer, would recognize that the user interacts with the navigation region by entering text in the search field which causes the navigation region to update to the results that satisfy the input, whereby the system searches by partial user input such that every new keystroke updates the results without requiring any specific input to re-initiate (e.g. beginning with the input character ‘K’ and continuing to finish entry of “KDCA’). Thus, the combination adequately teaches applicant’s claimed limitation. Please see the examiner’s suggestion at the beginning of the office action.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPub 2016/0378272 A1 issued to Whitlark et al. on 29 December 2016. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-6 and 8-13 (e.g. multiple application areas including a text entry keyboard and navigation map all maintaining simultaneous focus).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (8am-6pm).
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)-272-4088. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights