DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on 05/07/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 13-19 are withdrawn.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant’s remarks regarding claim rejections under 35 USC § 102, Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 7 in a way which has required further searching and consideration. Upon further searching and consideration, a new rejection in view of Tuukkanen (US 2016/0364224 A1) is provided below.
With respect to Applicant’s remarks regarding claim rejections under 35 USC § 103, the examiner agrees that the prior art reference Ma et al. (US 2024/0007539 A1) is an exception to be a prior art reference to the current application and therefore the rejection is withdrawn. However, in light of Applicant’s amendments, further searching and consideration was deemed necessary. Accordingly, a new rejection in view of Tuukkanen (US 2016/0364224 A1) is provided below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. “Abe” (US 2021/0149659 A1) in view of Tuukkanen (US 2016/0364224 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Abe teaches
An application display method see at least FIG.’s 1 & 3 and [0033]-[0034] where a vehicle program rewrite system 1 is provided which includes a vehicle system 4 provided in the vehicle and a display terminal 5. The display terminal 5 consists of an in-vehicle display 7 configured to display and provide a navigation function for the vehicle, comprising:
displaying a first interface of a first application see at least FIG. 4 and [0031] where map data used by a map application (i.e., “first application”) is rewritten by wire or wirelessly. As illustrated in FIG. 4 and described in [0054]-[0055], the in-vehicle display 7 displays a navigation screen 101 (i.e., “first interface”) which includes a campaign notice icon 101a (see bottom right of FIG. 4; provided below) indicating that an update of the application program has been issued; and
PNG
media_image1.png
750
1050
media_image1.png
Greyscale
detecting a first operation in the first interface, wherein the first operation is used to display a second interface of the first application see at least FIG. 4 and [0054]-[0056] where the user can operate the campaign notice icon 101a (i.e., “first operation”) and a CGW 14 pops up a campaign notice screen 102 on the navigation screen 101, as shown in FIG. 5. FIG. 5 corresponds to an illustration of the second interface of the first application, the second interface comprises a first sub-interface and a second sub-interface, the first sub-interface is used to display a running status of a target vehicle on an electronic map see at least FIG. 5 (provided below) which is an example of the second interface. As illustrated in FIG. 5, an electronic map of the surrounding area of the navigation device which includes a location, position and direction of the vehicle is displayed, and the second sub-interface is used to provide an upgrade function for user selection see at least FIG. 5 and [0056] where the campaign notice screen 102 which displays a guidance “software update available” along with a “CONFIRM” button 102a and a “LATER” button 102b in which the user may operate to perform the upgrade function. The campaign notice screen 102 corresponds to the second sub-interface used to provide an upgrade function for user selection
PNG
media_image2.png
727
1036
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tuukkanen teaches that it is known to provide the concept wherein the second sub-interface is used to provide an estimated time to perform the upgrade function see at least FIG. 8B (reproduced below) wherein a notification 817 is displayed which includes an estimated upload/update time of 30 minutes and the system further asks the user whether or not they wish to proceed with the software update.
PNG
media_image3.png
604
1260
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Abe to incorporate the teachings of Tuukkanen and provide the method wherein the second sub-interface is used to provide an upgrade function for user selection and an estimated time to perform the upgrade function. In doing so, the method is improved by giving the user a realistic expectation of how long the software update will take which may reduce anxiety and uncertainty by informing the user of what to expect before accepting the software upgrade. This empowers the users to make an informed decision about when to perform the update.
Regarding claim 2, Abe in view of Tuukkanen teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the running status of the target vehicle on the electronic map comprises location information of the target vehicle see at least Abe FIG. 5 where the location of the vehicle is displayed via the cursor/indicator shown in FIG. 5.
Regarding claim 3, Abe in view of Tuukkanen teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first sub-interface is further used to display or prompt an upgrade area, and the upgrade area is used to define an area in which the upgrade function can be performed Abe is further modified by Tuukkanen to disclose an upgrade area used to define an area in which the upgrade function can be performed; see at least Tuukkanen FIG. 8B where a navigation map displays an upgrade area starting from an “Office” and ending at “Home.” The user plans on traveling between the office, the grocery store, and the user’s home and this entire area corresponds to displaying an upgrade area in which the upgrade function can be performed.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Abe to incorporate the teachings of Tuukkanen and provide the method wherein the first sub-interface is further used to display or prompt an upgrade area, and the upgrade area is used to define an area in which the upgrade function can be performed. In doing so, the method is improved by giving the user a realistic expectation of how long the software update will take which may reduce anxiety and uncertainty by informing the user of what to expect before accepting the software upgrade. This empowers the users to make an informed decision about when to update.
Regarding claim 4, Abe in view of Tuukkanen teaches
The method according to claim 3, wherein the upgrade area is predefined or preconfigured see at least Tuukkanen [0071] where the user may enter his or her route and/or destinations (e.g., home 809, grocery store 811 and office 813) in the UE 101.
Regarding claim 5, Abe in view of Tuukkanen teaches
The method according to claim 3, wherein the method further comprises:
detecting a second operation, wherein the second operation is used to select the upgrade area on the electronic map or to enter location information of the upgrade area see at least Tuukkanen [0071] where the user may enter his or her route and/or destinations (e.g., home 809, grocery store 811 and office 813) in the UE 101.
Regarding claim 6, Abe in view of Tuukkanen teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
displaying feedback information, wherein the feedback information indicates that the target vehicle cannot be upgraded or that the target vehicle does not meet an upgrade requirement see at least Tuukkanen FIG. 8D and [0074] where the system 100 can cause a presentation of a status notification 825 in the interface (e.g., “Update Failed”).
Regarding claim 7, Abe in view of Tuukkanen teaches
An electronic device see at least Abe FIG. 1, [0031] and [0033] in-vehicle electronic control system, comprising a display see at least Abe [0033]-[0034] in-vehicle display 7, a memory see at least Abe [0096], one or more processors see at least [0096], a first application see at least Abe FIG. 4 and [0031] where map data used by a map application (i.e., “first application”) is rewritten by wire or wirelessly, and one or more programs see at least Abe [0096], wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory, and when the one or more processors execute the one or more programs see at least Abe [0096], the electronic device is enabled to perform operations comprising:
displaying a first interface of the first application see at least Abe FIG. 4 and [0031] where map data used by a map application (i.e., “first application”) is rewritten by wire or wirelessly. As illustrated in FIG. 4 and described in [0054]-[0055], the in-vehicle display 7 displays a navigation screen 101 which includes a campaign notice icon 101a (see bottom right of FIG. 4) indicating that an update of the application program has been issued; and
detecting a first operation in the first interface, wherein the first operation is used to display a second interface of the first application see at least Abe FIG. 4 and [0054]-[0056] where the user can operate the campaign notice icon 101a (i.e., “first operation”) and a CGW 14 pops up a campaign notice screen 102 on the navigation screen 101, as shown in FIG. 5. FIG. 5 corresponds to an illustration of the second interface of the first application, the second interface comprises a first sub-interface and a second sub-interface, the first sub-interface is used to display a running status of a target vehicle on an electronic map see at least Abe FIG. 5 which is an example of the second interface. As displayed in FIG. 5, an electronic map of the surrounding area of the navigation device which includes a location, position and direction of the vehicle is displayed, and the second sub-interface is used to provide an upgrade function for user selection see at least Abe FIG. 5 and [0056] where the campaign notice screen 102 which displays a guidance “software update available” along with a “CONFIRM” button 102a and a “LATER” button 102b in which the user may operate to perform the upgrade function. The campaign notice screen 102 corresponds to the second sub-interface used to provide an upgrade function and an estimated time to perform the upgrade function see at least Tuukkanen FIG. 8B (reproduced below) wherein a notification 817 is displayed which includes an estimated upload/update time of 30 minutes and further asks the user whether or not they wish to proceed with the software update.
PNG
media_image3.png
604
1260
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 comprises substantially similar technical features as Claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same reasonings.
Claim 9 comprises substantially similar technical features as Claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same reasonings.
Claim 10 comprises substantially similar technical features as Claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same reasonings.
Claim 11 comprises substantially similar technical features as Claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same reasonings.
Claim 12 comprises substantially similar technical features as Claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same reasonings.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Tuukkanen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noh (US 2024/0403025 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Abe in view of Tuukkanen teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the upgrade function includes an immediate upgrade function for user selection see at least Abe FIG. 5 “CONFIRM” corresponds to an immediate upgrade
Noe teaches that it is known to provide the method wherein the upgrade function includes a scheduled upgrade function for user selection. See at least FIG. 3A; [0038]-[0040] and [0045] where an interface screen is displayed which includes an update schedule item 301 wherein a user may set the day of the week to be updated, the time to be updated, or immediately. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Abe in view of Tuukkanen to incorporate the teachings of Noe and provide the method wherein the upgrade function includes a scheduled upgrade function for user selection. In doing so, the method is improved by enabling the user to perform the upgrade at their desired date/time.
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 Brittany Renee Peko whose telephone number is (408)918-7506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30-6:30 PT.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/B.R.P./07/09/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights