DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1, 3-12, 16-17, and 19-20 has been amended.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending in Instant Application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 rejection: Applicant’s requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner would have to respectfully disagree. STEP 1: Claims are directed to one of the statutory categories. STEP 2A Prong One: The limitations identified by the Examiner below in the rejection shows that one of ordinary skilled in the art can mentally perform the limitations. The determining limitation can indicate the plurality of paths can be mentally determined based on a received GNSS signal. One of ordinary skilled in the art can determine paths based on provided information. This limitation can be performed mentally, therefore this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. STEP 2A Prong Two: We analyze the judicial exception in integrate into a practical application. The rest of the limitations, presenting…, receiving…, sending…, send…, receiving…, and presenting… are examined and conclude that they are mere gathering of data, which are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The only additional elements states are electronic devices and computing device which are recited at a high level of generality. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. STEP 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim does not actually perform anything than just presenting a map of the determined paths. The map presentation is not significant enough to overcome the judicial exception and the claim is not integrated into a practical application. 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. Therefore, the claim is not integrated into a practical application and as such the 101 rejection for claims 1 and 3-20.
Regarding the 102(a)(1) rejection: Applicant argues that Kurtti fails to teach the claimed feature of "plurality of paths between the starting point and the destination based on a received GNSS signal", argued on pages [14-15] of the remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is reminded that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Examiner would like to mention that the claim merely states that based on a received GPS signal, multiple paths are determined between two points. With that said, Examiner would like to point to paragraph [0054] and Figure 7 of the Kurtti reference where it states that “path/information generator 720…create user-defined path 520 based on user-defined path points 510, and may create user-defined path 560 based on user-defined path points 550”. Figure 7 discloses that the path/information generator 720 is part of the sever 130. Also, Examiner would like to point to paragraph [0052] of the reference where it states that “Path points receiver 700 may include any hardware or combination of hardware and software that may receive user-defined path points 510 and/or GPS coordinates 540 from mobile user device 110, and/or may receive user-defined path points 550 from stationary user device 120. Path points receiver 700 may provide user-defined path points 510 and/or user-defined path points 550 to database 710 and/or to path/information generator 720”. Furthermore, Examiner would like to point out the Figure 6B discloses multiple user-defined paths. These paragraphs and Figures indicate that the path/information generator 720, which is part of the server 130, will receive GPS coordinates 540, which include GPS signals, from path points receiver 700. These received GPS coordinates 540 (GPS signals) will be used to create multiple paths, path 520 and path 560. The server 130 receives the GPS coordinates 540 from the mobile user device, which then uses the coordinates to create multiple paths. Therefore, Kurtti does teach "plurality of paths between the starting point and the destination based on a received GNSS signal" and as such meets the scope of the claimed subject matter. Applicant argues that Kurtti fails to teach the claimed feature of "presenting, by the first electronic device, a map including a plurality of visual objects indicating the plurality of determined paths from the starting point to the destination point, responsive to receiving the plurality of determined paths from the computing device", argued on page [16] of the remarks. Examiner agrees, and provides a new reference to disclose this aspect since the scope of the claims have changed. Applicant' s amendment and arguments to claims 3 and 8 have overcome the 102(a)(1) rejection raised in the previous action; therefore the 102(a)(1) rejection for claims 3 and 8 are hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the 103(a) rejection: Applicant' s amendment and arguments to claims 6-7, 11, and 17 have overcome the 103(a) rejection raised in the previous action; therefore the 103(a) rejections for claims 6-7, 11, and 17 are hereby withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/27/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
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 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims’ subject matter eligibility will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
With respect to claims 1, 10, and 19.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: the claim recites, inter alia:
“determine a plurality of paths from a starting point to the destination point of the vehicle signal obtained by the computing device": A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine paths from beginning to end based on provided information. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The only limitations not treated above, “presenting a user interface to receive at least a destination point of a vehicle from a user”, “receiving the destination point of the vehicle from the user via the user interface responsive to presenting the user interface”, “sending the destination point to a computing device via a network”, “send the plurality of determined paths to the first electronic device or a second electronic device”, “receiving the plurality of determined paths from the computing device”, and “presenting a map including a plurality of visual objects indicating the plurality of determined paths from the starting point to the destination point, responsive to receiving the plurality of determined paths from the computing device”, involves the mere gathering of data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of the “electronic devices” and “computing device” are recited at a high level of generality, and comprises only a processor to simply perform the generic computer functions. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 10, 12,1 4-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtti et al. (USPGPub 2010/0145601) in view of Mcbride et al. (USPGPub 2022/0299331). As per claim 1, Kurtti discloses a method, comprising: presenting, by a first electronic device, a user interface to receive at least a destination point of a vehicle from a user (see at least paragraph 0048; wherein the user may be presented with the user interface depicted in FIG. 6C. As shown in FIG. 6C, the user may be presented a variety of input mechanisms (e.g., fields) for creating a new user-defined path. For example, the user may be presented with a destination input mechanism 650 to save the new user-defined path); receiving the destination point of the vehicle from the user via the user interface responsive to presenting the user interface (see at least paragraph 0048; wherein destination input mechanism 650 may enable the user to input a destination point (e.g. "Point E") associated with the new user-defined path); sending the destination point to a computing device via a network (see at least paragraph 0039; wherein the user (e.g., via mobile user device 110 and the GPS navigation application) may create user-defined path points 510, and may provide user-defined path points 510 to server 130. User-defined path points 510 may include a user-defined destination point) to cause the computing device to: determine a plurality of paths from a starting point to the destination point of the vehicle (see at least paragraph 0054; wherein path/information generator 720 create user-defined path 520 based on user-defined path points 510, and may create user-defined path 560 based on user-defined path points 550) based on a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal obtained by the computing device (see at least paragraph 0052; wherein may receive user-defined path points 510 and/or GPS coordinates 540 from mobile user device 110), and send the plurality of determined paths to the first electronic device or a second electronic device, the second electronic device separate from the first electronic device and associated with the vehicle (see at least paragraph 0046; wherein user interfaces 600 capable of being generated by server 130…see at least paragraph 0047; wherein the user may be presented with one or more user-defined paths 630 (e.g., "User-defined path #1," "User-defined path #2," and "User-defined path #3") for selection); receiving, by the first electronic device, the plurality of determined paths from the computing device (see at least paragraph 0047; wherein the user may be presented with one or more user-defined paths 630 (e.g., "User-defined path #1," "User-defined path #2," and "User-defined path #3") for selection). Kurtti does not explicitly mention presenting, by the first electronic device, a map including a plurality of visual objects indicating the plurality of determined paths from the starting point to the destination point, responsive to receiving the plurality of determined paths from the computing device. However Mcbride does disclose: presenting, by the first electronic device, a map including a plurality of visual objects indicating the plurality of determined paths from the starting point to the destination point, responsive to receiving the plurality of determined paths from the computing device (see at least paragraph 0007; wherein the system may include a route providing module that is configured to provide one or more selected routes on the map based on the route information. The system may include a display providing module to provide the one or more selected routes and the map for display to the user). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Mcbride with the teachings as in Kurtti. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability for users to learn precise distance calculations of a route before or after traveling the route, see Mcbride paragraph 0011. As per claim 10, Kurtti discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a computing device, a starting point of a vehicle and a destination point of the vehicle from a first electronic device located remotely from the computing device via a network (see at least paragraph 0015; wherein the user, via the mobile user device, may customize the calculated path by inputting intermediate points (e.g., locations to travel past that may be between a starting point and a destination point) and/or additional path information (e.g., utilize certain streets, highways, etc. between the starting and destination points)); determining a plurality of paths from the starting point to the destination point (see at least paragraph 0054; wherein path/information generator 720 create user-defined path 520 based on user-defined path points 510, and may create user-defined path 560 based on user-defined path points 550) based on a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal obtained by the computing device, responsive to receiving the starting point and the destination point (see at least paragraph 0052; wherein may receive user-defined path points 510 and/or GPS coordinates 540 from mobile user device 110); and sending the determined plurality of paths from the computing device to the first electronic device or a second electronic device separate from the first electronic device and associated with the vehicle (see at least paragraph 0046; wherein user interfaces 600 capable of being generated by server 130…see at least paragraph 0047; wherein the user may be presented with one or more user-defined paths 630 (e.g., "User-defined path #1," "User-defined path #2," and "User-defined path #3") for selection). Kurtti does not explicitly mention cause the first electronic device or the second electronic device to present a map including a plurality of visual objects indicated the plurality of paths from the starting point to the destination. However Mcbride does disclose: cause the first electronic device or the second electronic device to present a map including a plurality of visual objects indicated the plurality of paths from the starting point to the destination (see at least paragraph 0007; wherein the system may include a route providing module that is configured to provide one or more selected routes on the map based on the route information. The system may include a display providing module to provide the one or more selected routes and the map for display to the user). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Mcbride with the teachings as in Kurtti. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability for users to learn precise distance calculations of a route before or after traveling the route, see Mcbride paragraph 0011. As per claim 12, Kurtti discloses further comprising: receiving selection of one of the paths from the first electronic device, responsive to sending the plurality of determined paths to the first electronic device; and sending the selected one of the paths to the second electronic device, responsive to receiving the selection from the first electronic device (see at least paragraph 0047; wherein the user may be presented with one or more user-defined paths 630 (e.g., "User-defined path #1," "User-defined path #2," and "User-defined path #3") for selection. In one exemplary implementation, if the user selects one of user-defined paths 630, server 130 may provide the selected one of user-defined paths 630 (and associated information) to mobile user device 110). As per claim 14, Kurtti discloses further comprising: receiving actual movements of the vehicle; and providing the actual movements of the vehicle to the first electronic device or the second electronic device for displaying the actual movements of the vehicle on the first electronic device or the second electronic device (see at least paragraph 0020; wherein server 130 may create a user-defined path based on the user-defined start point, the user-defined destination point, and the user-defined intermediate point(s), and may store (e.g., in a database associated with server 130) the user-defined path. Server 130 may receive information associated with the user-defined path (e.g., mileage, directional information, traffic information, etc.), and may provide the information associated with the user-defined path to mobile user device 110 (e.g., when mobile user device 110 is traversing the user-defined path)). As per claim 15, Kurtti discloses further comprising: storing an actual moving path corresponding to the actual movements in the computing device; and responsive to receiving a subsequent request for a path to the destination point, determining the path by using at least the actual moving path stored in the computing device (see at least paragraph 0053; wherein path database 710 may store information 530 associated with user-defined path 520…see at least paragraph 0040; wherein Information 530 may include mileage information (e.g., mileage associated with each route (e.g., road, highway, etc.) traversed on user-defined path 520), directional information (e.g., maps, road names, highway names, exit information, turn information, etc.), traffic information (e.g., traffic conditions associated with routes traversed on user-defined path 520), construction information (e.g., road construction, detour information, road closings, etc.), etc).
As per claim 16, Kurtti discloses further comprising: receiving, from the first electronic device, a change to the plurality of paths, responsive to presenting the map from the starting point to the destination point by the first electronic device (see at least paragraph 0041; wherein the user (e.g., via mobile user device 110) may review, edit, refine, update, etc. user-defined path 520 prior to traversing user-defined path 520); and updating the plurality of paths from the starting point to the destination point to updated plurality of paths according to the received change (see at least paragraph 0040; wherein information 530 associated with user-defined path 520. Information 530 may include directional information (e.g., maps)). As per claim 18, Kurtti discloses wherein the change indicates inclusion of one or more segments through which the vehicle is to pass to reach the destination point, the one or more segments not included in the one or more determined paths (see at least paragraph 0041; wherein the user (e.g., via mobile user device 110) may review, edit, refine, update, etc. user-defined path 520 prior to traversing user-defined path 520). As per claim 19, Kurtti discloses a method comprising: displaying a first user interface to receive at least a destination point of a vehicle from a user (see at least paragraph 0048; wherein the user may be presented with the user interface depicted in FIG. 6C. As shown in FIG. 6C, the user may be presented a variety of input mechanisms (e.g., fields) for creating a new user-defined path. For example, the user may be presented with a destination input mechanism 650 to save the new user-defined path); receiving the destination point of the vehicle from the user via the user interface responsive to presenting the first user interface (see at least paragraph 0048; wherein destination input mechanism 650 may enable the user to input a destination point (e.g. "Point E") associated with the new user-defined path); sending the destination point to a computing device via a network (see at least paragraph 0039; wherein the user (e.g., via mobile user device 110 and the GPS navigation application) may create user-defined path points 510, and may provide user-defined path points 510 to server 130. User-defined path points 510 may include a user-defined destination point) to cause the computing device to determine, based on a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal obtained by the computing device (see at least paragraph 0052; wherein may receive user-defined path points 510 and/or GPS coordinates 540 from mobile user device 110), a plurality of paths from a starting point of the vehicle to the destination point (see at least paragraph 0054; wherein path/information generator 720 create user-defined path 520 based on user-defined path points 510, and may create user-defined path 560 based on user-defined path points 550); receiving the plurality of determined paths from the computing device, responsive to sending the destination point (see at least paragraph 0047; wherein the user may be presented with one or more user-defined paths 630 (e.g., "User-defined path #1," "User-defined path #2," and "User-defined path #3") for selection). Kurtti does not explicitly mention displaying a second user interface including the starting point, the destination point, and a plurality of visual objects indicating the plurality of paths on a map. However Mcbride does disclose: displaying a second user interface including the starting point, the destination point, and a plurality of visual objects indicating the plurality of paths on a map (see at least paragraph 0040; wherein information 530 associated with user-defined path 520. Information 530 may include directional information (e.g., maps)) (see at least paragraph 0007; wherein the system may include a route providing module that is configured to provide one or more selected routes on the map based on the route information. The system may include a display providing module to provide the one or more selected routes and the map for display to the user). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Mcbride with the teachings as in Kurtti. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability for users to learn precise distance calculations of a route before or after traveling the route, see Mcbride paragraph 0011. As per claim 20, Kurtti discloses further comprising: receiving selection of a visual object of the plurality of paths responsive to displaying the second user interface; and sending a path corresponding to the visual object to initiate guidance to the destination according to the path (see at least paragraph 0047; wherein the user may be presented with one or more user-defined paths 630 (e.g., "User-defined path #1," "User-defined path #2," and "User-defined path #3") for selection. In one exemplary implementation, if the user selects one of user-defined paths 630, server 130 may provide the selected one of user-defined paths 630 (and associated information) to mobile user device 110).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtti et al. (USPGPub 2010/0145601), in view of Mcbride et al. (USPGPub 2022/0299331), and further in view of Bos (USPGPub 2011/0125398). As per claim 9, Kurtti and Mcbride do not explicitly mention further comprising: providing simulation of driving of the vehicle from the starting point to the destination point by the first electronic device according to the plurality of determined paths. However Bos does disclose: further comprising: providing simulation of driving of the vehicle from the starting point to the destination point by the first electronic device according to the plurality of determined paths (see at least paragraph 0012; wherein the facility also provides for pseudo three-dimensional rendering of a calculated route, and route preview functionality which simulates a user travelling along the route and thereby provides the user with a preview of the calculated route). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Bos with the teachings as in Kurtti and Mcbride. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve accuracy, see Bos paragraph 0055.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtti et al. (USPGPub 2010/0145601), in view of Mcbride et al. (USPGPub 2022/0299331), and further in view of Arai et al. (USPGPub 2007/0032949). As per claim 13, Kurtti and Mcbride do not explicitly mention wherein the first electronic device is a portable device and the second electronic device is installed in the vehicle. However Arai does disclose: wherein the first electronic device is a portable device and the second electronic device is installed in the vehicle (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein a registration terminal 50 and a navigation device 60A). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Arai with the teachings as in Kurtti and Mcbride. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve utilization, see Arai paragraph 0212.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach receiving, by the first electronic device, a change to the plurality of determined paths from the user, while presenting the map; and presenting, by the first electronic device, an updated version of the map including one or more other visual objects indicating one or more changed paths from the starting point to the destination point according to the change. Claims 4-5 are also object to by virtue of their dependency.
Claim(s) 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the second electronic device is installed in the vehicle, and wherein the second electronic device is authenticated with respect to the first electronic device in the computer device.
Claim(s) 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach sending, to the computing device, first identification of the user or the first electronic device to cause the computing device to: associate plurality of determined paths with the first identification, and send the plurality of determined paths to the first electronic device or the second electronic device, responsive to the first electronic device or the second electronic device providing second identification matching the first identification to the computing device, wherein the second identification is used for an authentication, with respect to the first electronic device, of the second electronic device.
Claim(s) 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach presenting, by the first electronic device, the plurality of determined paths; responsive to presenting the plurality of determined paths, receiving selection of one of the plurality of determined paths for navigating from the starting point to the destination point; and sending the selection to the computing device, responsive to receiving the selection, to cause the selected one of the plurality of paths to be sent to the second electronic device authenticated with respect to the first electronic device in the computer device
Claim(s) 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach receiving first identification of the first electronic device or a user of the first electronic device; associating the plurality of determined paths with the first identification; receiving second identification for the second electronic device from the first electronic device or the second electronic device; performing an authentication of the second electronic device corresponding to determining whether the second identification matches the first identification; and sending the plurality of determined paths to the first electronic device or the second electronic device, responsive to determining that the second identification matches the first identification.
Claim(s) 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach sending the updated plurality of paths to the first electronic device or the second electronic device, wherein other visual objects indicating the updated plurality of paths are included in a map displayed on the first electronic device or the second electronic device.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2024/0328805 – Provides a navigation information sharing method provides a first electronic device that displays a first interface of first navigation information and sends a first message following detecting a first input to the first interface. A second electronic device displays first prompt information following receipt of the first message, where the first prompt information is associated with acceptance of the first navigation information. The second electronic device executes a navigation task related to the first navigation information following detection of a second input pertaining to acceptance of the first navigation information. USPGPub 2024/0175696 – Provide computer-implemented methods, systems, and devices for detecting a vehicle type in order to adapt directions and navigation instructions mitigating noise in a signal. A computing device initiates, in response to user input, a navigation application. The computing device further detects one or more vehicle type identification signals associated with a vehicle. The computing device further automatically determines, using the one or more signals, a vehicle type associated with the vehicle. The computing device further receives from the navigation application, navigation information, wherein the navigation information is customized based on the determined vehicle type.
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 MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights