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 .
Application Status
This Final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 22 January 2026. Claims 1, 4-10, 13-18, and 20 are examined and pending. Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 13-16, 18, and 20 are currently amended, claims 2-3, 11-12, and 19 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argues the following:
Although not agreeing with or further commenting on the § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 based on the previous language of the claims, Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 10, and 18 to further highlight that the claimed invention is not directed to a mental process or any other abstract idea.
For example, claim 1 (which is exemplary of claims 10 and 18) requires a specific system architecture and a machine-to-machine protocol that cannot be replicated in the human mind. In particular, the claim 1 requires
" a partitioned electronic map data structure stored in an apparatus;
" machine-to-machine communication where a server receives location
information from the apparatus and provides up-to-date map data back to it;
" a "checking frequency" and "checking" cycle based on server-defined priority
levels; and
" physical transmission and receipt of "communication signals" through a
"communication channel."
The human mind cannot perform these limitations to update an electronic map stored in the apparatus. Because the independent claims are anchored by a specific data structure (the partitioned map) and the physical transmission of electronic signals over a communications channel, the claimed invention does not fall within the "Mental Process" judicial exception.
In addition, even if the prioritization logic (i.e., the "determining" and "defining"
steps) were considered abstract, it is integrated into a practical application that provides a technical improvement to navigation technology. Pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a), a claim is eligible if it provides a technological solution to a technological problem. The Specification at par. [0004] identifies a technical failing of prior systems where updating the "entire map" requires manual intervention, consumes excessive bandwidth, and causes the navigation device to be "not operable or able to perform navigation functions" during installation of a map update. The claimed invention solves this by: (i) utilizing a partitioned electronic map to allow for granular updates; (ii) linking user- journey relevancy to a checking frequency for specific map regions (checking more often for high-priority regions); and (iii) utilizing a communication channel to transmit "up-to-date map data" only when and where it is needed based on that frequency. This is a resource-management protocol. It optimizes the communication channel(s) and ensures the apparatus remains operable by avoiding the download of the entire map. This improvement in the efficiency and operability of the apparatus constitutes an integration into a practical application.
Moreover, the combination of claimed elements - for example the specific data architecture of the apparatus in conjunction with the server-driven prioritization - provides an "inventive concept" that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The claimed invention does not merely recite "updating a map." Rather, it recites a specific technical solution involving: an apparatus containing an electronic map partitioned into discrete geographical areas; determining a checking frequency based on journey-derived priority levels; and checking, at the checking frequency, whether a portion of stored map data needs to be updated. While general map updates or data collection may be common, the Office Action has provided no evidence that the specific combination of claimed elements was routine or conventional at the time of filing.
For the foregoing reasons, independent claims 1, 10, and 18, as well as all
claims dependent therefrom, are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the § 101 rejection be withdrawn.
The examiner has considered the arguments for step 2A prong 1 and respectfully disagree. The independent claims recite determining, for each of the plurality of geographical areas of a map, a relevancy corresponding to a frequency with which the user has traveled and/or will travel a given geographical area of the map during the one or more journeys; defining regions of the map, each region including one or more geographical areas of the map having similar relevancy and each region being associated with a priority level that is determined based on the relevancy of the one or more geographical areas included in that region; determining a checking frequency based on the priority level of a corresponding region for a portion of the plurality of portions of the stored map data; checking, at the checking frequency, whether the portion of the plurality of portions of the stored map data is up-to-date. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as location information, journeys information, geographical areas of a map, map data, and travel data of a user could determine for each of the plurality of geographical areas of a map, a relevancy corresponding to a frequency with which the user has traveled and/or will travel a given geographical area of the map during the one or more journeys; define regions of the map, each region including one or more geographical areas of the map having similar relevancy and each region being associated with a priority level that is determined based on the relevancy of the one or more geographical areas included in that region; determine a checking frequency based on the priority level of a corresponding region for a portion of the plurality of portions of the stored map data; and check, at the checking frequency, whether the portion of the plurality of portions of the stored map data is up-to-date. The mere nominal recitation of “at least one processor” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of receiving location information representative of one or more journeys of a user, the one or more journeys of the user including at least one of: a current journey of the user, one or more previous journeys of the user, and one or more planned journeys of the user; updating stored map data based on the regions and their priority levels; requesting the up-to-date map data for one or more portions of a plurality of portions of the stored map data, each portion among the plurality of portions of the stored map data corresponding to one or more regions among the regions of the map; receiving. by the apparatus through a communication channel configured to transmit communication signals, up-to-date map data provided by the server; and performing, at least one navigation function based on the updated stored map data; a memory that stores instructions, at least one processor, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. The receiving and requesting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (journey data, location data, geographical data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The updating and performing steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Moreover, the performing of navigation is recited at a high level of generality in which it encompasses performing navigating instructions on a navigation device (i.e., displaying, notifying, etc.) which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a memory that stores instructions, at least one processor, and a non-transitory computer readable medium is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
Lastly, Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, requesting, updating and performing elements/steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these elements/steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Thus, the claims as presented are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As such, the rejection under USC 101 is maintained herein.
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 1, 4-10, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1, 4-10, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite determining, for each of the plurality of geographical areas of a map, a relevancy corresponding to a frequency with which the user has traveled and/or will travel a given geographical area of the map during the one or more journeys; defining regions of the map, each region including one or more geographical areas of the map having similar relevancy and each region being associated with a priority level that is determined based on the relevancy of the one or more geographical areas included in that region; determining a checking frequency based on the priority level of a corresponding region for a portion of the plurality of portions of the stored map data; checking, at the checking frequency, whether the portion of the plurality of portions of the stored map data is up-to-date. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as location information, journeys information, geographical areas of a map, map data, and travel data of a user could determine for each of the plurality of geographical areas of a map, a relevancy corresponding to a frequency with which the user has traveled and/or will travel a given geographical area of the map during the one or more journeys; define regions of the map, each region including one or more geographical areas of the map having similar relevancy and each region being associated with a priority level that is determined based on the relevancy of the one or more geographical areas included in that region; determine a checking frequency based on the priority level of a corresponding region for a portion of the plurality of portions of the stored map data; and check, at the checking frequency, whether the portion of the plurality of portions of the stored map data is up-to-date. The mere nominal recitation of “at least one processor” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of receiving location information representative of one or more journeys of a user, the one or more journeys of the user including at least one of: a current journey of the user, one or more previous journeys of the user, and one or more planned journeys of the user; updating stored map data based on the regions and their priority levels; requesting the up-to-date map data for one or more portions of a plurality of portions of the stored map data, each portion among the plurality of portions of the stored map data corresponding to one or more regions among the regions of the map; receiving. by the apparatus through a communication channel configured to transmit communication signals, up-to-date map data provided by the server; and performing, at least one navigation function based on the updated stored map data; a memory that stores instructions, at least one processor, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. The receiving and requesting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (journey data, location data, geographical data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The updating and performing steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Moreover, the performing of navigation is recited at a high level of generality in which it encompasses performing navigating instructions on a navigation device (i.e., displaying, notifying, etc.) which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a memory that stores instructions, at least one processor, and a non-transitory computer readable medium is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, requesting, updating, and performing steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-9, 13-17, and 20 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1, 4-10, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to 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.
Claims 1, 6-10, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo (US 20100161219 A1) in view of Wheeler et al (US 20180188045 A1) in view of Geelen et al (US 20100332119 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Lo discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a server from an apparatus, location information representative of one or more journeys of a user (see at least [0024-0026]), the one or more journeys of the user including at least one of: a current journey of the user, one or more previous journeys of the user, and one or more planned journeys of the user, wherein the apparatus stores an electronic map which is partitioned into a plurality of geographic areas (see at least [0024-0026]); determining, by the server, for each of the plurality of geographical areas of a map, a relevancy corresponding to a frequency with which the user has traveled and/or will travel a given geographical area of the map during the one or more journeys (see at least [0011-0013], [0032], and [0046]); defining, by the server, regions of the map (see at least [0011-0013], [0032], and [0046]), each region including one or more geographical areas of the map having similar relevancy (see at least [0011-0013], [0032], and [0046]); updating stored map data based on the regions (see at least [0011-0013], [0032], and [0046]); and performing, by the apparatus, at least one navigation function based on the updated stored function (see at least [0024-0025], “…the positioning module 3 can obtain to the current position of the user and transfer the corresponding position signal to the navigation…”, “…The navigation module 4 plans the best drive path leading to a destination based on the position signal in conjunction with the electronic map…”); requesting the up-to-date map data for one or more portions of a plurality of portions of the stored map data (see at least [0011-0013], [0030], [0032], and [0046]), each portion among the plurality of portions of the stored map data corresponding to one or more regions among the regions of the map (see at least [0011-0013], [0030], [0032], and [0046]).
However, Lo do not specifically disclose determining a checking frequency based on the priority level of a corresponding region for a portion of the plurality of portions of the stored map data; checking, at the checking frequency, whether the portion of the plurality of portions of the stored map data is up-to-date.
Wheeler teaches determining a checking frequency based on the priority level of a corresponding region for a portion of the plurality of portions of the stored map data (see at least [0054], [0121], [0139-0142], [0145], and [0147]); checking, at the checking frequency, whether the portion of the plurality of portions of the stored map data is up-to-date (see at least [0054], [0121], [0139-0142], [0145], and [0147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lo, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler determining a checking frequency based on the priority level of a corresponding region for a portion of the plurality of portions of the stored map data; checking, at the checking frequency, whether the portion of the plurality of portions of the stored map data is up-to-date. This would be done to increase accuracy of determining vehicle location and map data and therefor improve utilization of the map for navigation (see Wheeler para 0004-0005).
Moreover, Lo as modified by Wheeler do not specifically disclose receiving. by the apparatus through a communication channel configured to transmit communication signals, up-to-date map data provided by the server.
Geelen teaches receiving. by the apparatus through a communication channel configured to transmit communication signals, up-to-date map data provided by the server (see at least [0023], [0094], and [0096-0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lo as modified by wheeler, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Geelen of receiving. by the apparatus through a communication channel configured to transmit communication signals, up-to-date map data provided by the server. This would be done to prioritize map updates by region and direct an alternate form of communication to another region, freeing up bandwidth on the primary communications.
With respect to claim 6, Lo discloses wherein updating the stored map data comprises: receiving up-to-date map data for a plurality of portions of the map data (see at least [0011], [0027], and [0026-0033]); and updating, in the order, each portion of the plurality of portions of the map data based on corresponding up-to-date map data (see at least [0011], [0027], and [0026-0033]).
However, Lo do not specifically disclose determining an order for updating each portion among the plurality of portions of the map data based on a priority level associated with one or more regions corresponding to each portion of the map data.
Wheeler teaches determining an order for updating each portion among the plurality of portions of the map data based on a priority level associated with one or more regions corresponding to each portion of the map data (see at least [0054], [0121], [0139-0142], [0145], and [0147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lo, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler of determining an order for updating each portion among the plurality of portions of the map data based on a priority level associated with one or more regions corresponding to each portion of the map data. This would be done to increase accuracy of determining vehicle location and map data and therefor improve utilization of the map for navigation (see Wheeler para 0004-0005).
With respect to claim 7, Lo do not specifically disclose where updating, in the order, each portion of the plurality of portions of the map data cormprises: updating one or more first portions corresponding to one or more first regions associated with a first priority level before updating one or more second portions corresponding to one or more second regions associated with a second priority level, the first priority level being higher than the second priority level in an arrangement of priority levels.
Wheeler teaches where updating, in the order, each portion of the plurality of portions of the map data cormprises: updating one or more first portions corresponding to one or more first regions associated with a first priority level before updating one or more second portions corresponding to one or more second regions associated with a second priority level (see at least [0054], [0121], [0139-0142], [0145], and [0147]), the first priority level being higher than the second priority level in an arrangement of priority levels (see at least [0054], [0121], [0139-0142], [0145], and [0147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lo, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler where updating, in the order, each portion of the plurality of portions of the map data comprises: updating one or more first portions corresponding to one or more first regions associated with a first priority level before updating one or more second portions corresponding to one or more second regions associated with a second priority level, the first priority level being higher than the second priority level in an arrangement of priority levels. This would be done to increase accuracy of determining vehicle location and map data and therefor improve utilization of the map for navigation (see Wheeler para 0004-0005).
With respect to claim 8, Lo discloses wherein: the map data is stored on one or more of a server and a user device (see at least [0011], [0027], [0026-0033], and [0045]); and updating the stored map data comprises replacing one or more portions of the map data stored on the one or more of the server and the user device with corresponding one or more portions of up-to-date map data (see at least [0011], [0027], [0026-0033], and [0045]).
With respect to claim 9, Lo discloses wherein updating the stored map data comprises: performing the updating responsive to receiving the up-to-date map data (see at least [0011], [0027], [0026-0033], and [0045]).
With respect to claims 10, 15, 16, and 17, they are system claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 1, 6, 7, and 8. As such, claims 10, 15, 16, and 17 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 1, 6, 7, and 8 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 18, it is drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 1. As such, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 20, Lo discloses wherein updating the stored map data comprises: receiving up-to-date map data for a plurality of portions of the map data (see at least [0011], [0027], and [0026-0033]).
However, Lo do not specifically disclose determining an order for installing the up-to-date map data for each portion of the map data based on a priority level associated with one or more regions corresponding to the plurality of portions of the map data, and installing, in the order, the up-to-date map data for each portion of the plurality of portions of the map data, the installing comprising: installing the up-to-date map data for one or more first portions corresponding to one or more first regions associated with a first priority level before installing the up-to-date map data for one or more second portions corresponding to one or more second regions associated with a second priority level, the first priority level being higher than the second priority level in an arrangement of priority levels.
Wheeler teaches determining an order for installing the up-to-date map data for each portion of the map data based on a priority level associated with one or more regions corresponding to the plurality of portions of the map data (see at least [0054], [0121], [0139-0142], [0145], and [0147]), and installing, in the order, the up-to-date map data for each portion of the plurality of portions of the map data (see at least [0054], [0121], [0139-0142], [0145], and [0147]), the installing comprising: installing the up-to-date map data for one or more first portions corresponding to one or more first regions associated with a first priority level before installing the up-to-date map data for one or more second portions corresponding to one or more second regions associated with a second priority level (see at least [0054], [0121], [0139-0142], [0145], and [0147]), the first priority level being higher than the second priority level in an arrangement of priority levels (see at least [0054], [0121], [0139-0142], [0145], and [0147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lo, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Wheeler of determining an order for installing the up-to-date map data for each portion of the map data based on a priority level associated with one or more regions corresponding to the plurality of portions of the map data, and installing, in the order, the up-to-date map data for each portion of the plurality of portions of the map data, the installing comprising: installing the up-to-date map data for one or more first portions corresponding to one or more first regions associated with a first priority level before installing the up-to-date map data for one or more second portions corresponding to one or more second regions associated with a second priority level, the first priority level being higher than the second priority level in an arrangement of priority levels. This would be done to increase accuracy of determining vehicle location and map data and therefor improve utilization of the map for navigation (see Wheeler para 0004-0005).
Claims 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo (US 20100161219 A1) in view of Wheeler et al (US 20180188045 A1) in view of Geelen et al (US 20100332119 A1) in view of JI (US 20150178067 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Lo as modified by Wheeler and Geelen do not specifically teach for each of the one or more portions of the plurality of portions of the stored map data, selecting a communication channel to communicate a corresponding portion of the up-to-date map data, the selecting based on one or more of a preference, communication channels availability, and the priority level of a corresponding region.
Ji teaches for each of the one or more portions of the plurality of portions of the stored map data, selecting a communication channel to communicate a corresponding portion of the up-to-date map data (see at least [0066], [0091], and [0132]), the selecting based on one or more of a preference, communication channels availability, and the priority level of a corresponding region (see at least [0066], [0091], and [0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lo as modified by Wheeler and Geelen, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Ji for each of the one or more portions of the plurality of portions of the stored map data, selecting a communication channel to communicate a corresponding portion of the up-to-date map data, the selecting based on one or more of a preference, communication channels availability, and the priority level of a corresponding region. This would be done to so hat drivers do not experience difficulty in directly checking and finding software version appropriate for their vehicles (see Ji para 0008).
With respect to claim 5, Lo discloses wherein selecting the communication channel comprises selecting one or more of: a long-range communication network, a long range wireless communication interface, a cellular communication network, a cellular communication interface, a wired communication pathway, and a wired communication interface (see at least [0027]).
With respect to claims 13 and 14, they are system claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 4 and 5. As such, claims 13 and 14 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 4 and 5 and are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in the office action. Accordingly, 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667