DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received 30 March 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an intended an intended” in line 9 should be “an intended”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 and 11 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.
As per Claim 6, “a path” in line 2 does not clearly relate back to “a path” in line 2 of Claim 5. If the same path is at issue, amendment to “the path” in Claim 6 is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 6, “the path” in line 2 does not clearly relate back to “a path” in line 2 of Claim 5 or “a path” in line 2 of Claim 6. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 11, “when a determination is made that the sensor data is inadequate to determine an upcoming maneuver for an intended traversal area includes inadequate map data to determine an upcoming maneuver” in 11-13 does not have a clear meaning. Clarification is required.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chowanic (US Pub. No. 2018/0315311) in view of Schunder (US Pub. No. 2012/0078512), further in view of Varoglu (US Pub. No. 2014/0309924).
As per Claim 1, Chowanic discloses a method, comprising:
at a computer system (104) that is in communication with (as per “The VCS 104 may also drive or otherwise communicate with one or mor displays 114” in ¶22) one or more output components (114) (Figs. 1-3; ¶17-35):
receiving a request (via destination selection control 312) to navigate to a first destination (310) (Fig. 3; ¶34-40);
in response to receiving the request (via destination selection control 312), initiating navigation (as per vehicle indication 304, as per route 306) to the first destination (310) (Fig. 3; ¶34-40); and
while navigating (as per vehicle indication 304, as per route 306) to the first destination (310) and in accordance with a determination that a set of one or more criteria (as per 802, 804, 808) is met (as per YES at 802, 804, 808), wherein the set of one or more criteria (as per 802, 804, 808) includes a criterion that is met (as per 814 via 812 from YES at 808) when a determination is made that the information is inadequate (as per “If the parking data 130 is older than a predefined amount of time” in ¶57) to determine an upcoming maneuver (as per “user interface 700 provides parking features in a turn-by-turn directional style” in ¶51; as per “At 814, the VCS 104 overlays the map 302 with end-of-journey parking indications” in ¶59) for an intended an intended traversal area (as per “within proximity to destination” in ¶56), requesting input (as per “At operation 812, the VCS 104 queries the parking data server 126 for up-to-date parking data 130” in ¶58) with respect to the upcoming maneuver (as per “user interface 700 provides parking features in a turn-by-turn directional style” in ¶51; as per “At 814, the VCS 104 overlays the map 302 with end-of-journey parking indications” in ¶59) (Figs. 3, 8; ¶34-40, 52-59).
Chowanic does not expressly disclose:
wherein the navigating is via sensor data;
wherein the information involves the sensor data;
wherein the requesting is via the one or more output components; and
wherein the input is user input.
Schunder discloses a navigation system (1) for a vehicle (31) that includes a display (4) and communicates with a network (61) (Fig. 1; ¶33-37). The system (1) processes map data in the form of tiles each of which is a limited subset of a whole map and divided into area bounded by logical boundaries (street corner, city, county, etc.) or geographical boundaries (coordinates, etc.) (Figs. 2a-2b, 3; ¶47-147). In operation, the system (1) responds to a received destination (401) by determining a route (403) and checking each tile (405) to determine if an update to the tile is needed and to determine whether the user is eligible (409) for the update (Fig. 4; ¶157-160). If the user not currently eligible for the update (509 from 501 via 503, 505, 507), the user may be presented with the option to purchase the update (513 via 509) at which point the system (1) receives a selection to purchase (Y at 515) or not purchase (N at 515) the option (Fig. 5; ¶161-168). In this way, the system aids the data provider in upselling data packages (¶169). Like Chowanic, Schunder is concerned with vehicle data systems.
Varoglu discloses a navigation system that may be used while travelling within a vehicle (100) to a destination (Fig. 1; ¶96). The navigation system outputs a map (104) showing outdoor elements and an indoor map (106) of a parking structure (Fig. 1; ¶96-97). In addition to the indoor map (106), the navigation system receives supplemental information about the parking structure including whether a parking spot is spot is currently available (¶52-53). The current availability information may be obtained from sensors placed in each parking spot and the indoor map (106) is updated frequently to reflect changes in the availability of each parking spot within a parking structure (¶53-55). Like Chowanic, Varoglu is concerned with vehicle data systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Chowanic, Schunder, and Varoglu, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Schunder and Varoglu since doing so would enhance the system by: aiding the data provider in upselling data packages; and providing updates in response to changes in availability of specified spots within a parking structure. Applying the teachings of Schunder and Varoglu to the system of Chowanic would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the navigating is via sensor data” in that parking data (130) informing display of the map (as per 814 via 812 from YES at 808) as per Chowanic would be further informed by sensor data as per Varoglu;
“wherein the information involves the sensor data” in that the parking data (130) as per Chowanic would be further informed by sensor data as per Varoglu;
“wherein the requesting is via the one or more output components” in that the system of Chowanic would be adapted to present the user with the option to purchase updated tile data as per Schunder; and
“wherein the input is user input” in that the system of Chowanic would be responsive to user inputs involving purchase of updated tile data as per Schunder.
As per Claim 2, the combination of Chowanic, Schunder, and Varoglu teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Chowanic further discloses after requesting input (as per “At operation 812, the VCS 104 queries the parking data server 126 for up-to-date parking data 130” in ¶58) with respect to the upcoming maneuver (as per “user interface 700 provides parking features in a turn-by-turn directional style” in ¶51; as per “At 814, the VCS 104 overlays the map 302 with end-of-journey parking indications” in ¶59), receiving input (as per “The VCS 104 may receive updated parking data 130 from the parking data server 126 responsive to the parking query 128” in ¶58) corresponding to a path in a representation (as per “the VCS 104 overlays the map 302 with end-of-journey parking indications” and “the VCS 104 may overlay the map 302 with on-street parking features 314” in ¶59) of the intended traversal area (as per “within proximity to destination” in ¶56) (Figs. 3, 8; ¶34-40, 52-59).
As per Claim 3, the combination of Chowanic, Schunder, and Varoglu teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Chowanic further discloses after requesting input (as per “At operation 812, the VCS 104 queries the parking data server 126 for up-to-date parking data 130” in ¶58) with respect to the upcoming maneuver (as per “user interface 700 provides parking features in a turn-by-turn directional style” in ¶51; as per “At 814, the VCS 104 overlays the map 302 with end-of-journey parking indications” in ¶59), receiving input (as per “The VCS 104 may receive updated parking data 130 from the parking data server 126 responsive to the parking query 128” in ¶58) corresponding to one or more points (as per “on-street parking features 314” in ¶59) in a representation (as per “the VCS 104 overlays the map 302 with end-of-journey parking indications” and “the VCS 104 may overlay the map 302 with on-street parking features 314” in ¶59) of the intended traversal area (as per “within proximity to destination” in ¶56), wherein a path (as per “the VCS 104 overlays the map 302 with end-of-journey parking indications” in ¶59) is generated based on the one or more points (as per “on-street parking features 314” in ¶59) (Figs. 3, 8; ¶34-40, 52-59).
As per Claim 4, the combination of Chowanic, Schunder, and Varoglu teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Chowanic further discloses after requesting input (as per “At operation 812, the VCS 104 queries the parking data server 126 for up-to-date parking data 130” in ¶58) with respect to the upcoming maneuver (as per “user interface 700 provides parking features in a turn-by-turn directional style” in ¶51; as per “At 814, the VCS 104 overlays the map 302 with end-of-journey parking indications” in ¶59), receiving a voice request (as per “The VCS 104 may be configured to support voice command” in ¶19) corresponding to the intended traversal area (as per “within proximity to destination” in ¶56) (Figs. 1, 3, 8; ¶17-19, 34-40, 52-59).
As per Claim 5, the combination of Chowanic, Schunder, and Varoglu teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Chowanic further discloses wherein the navigation (as per vehicle indication 304, as per route 306) to the first destination (310) is initiated along a path (as per specified portion of route 306), and wherein a portion of the path (as per specified portion of route 306) goes through the intended traversal area (as per “within proximity to destination” in ¶56) (Fig. 3; ¶34-40).
As per Claim 6, the combination of Chowanic, Schunder, and Varoglu teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 5. Chowanic further discloses wherein the navigation (as per vehicle indication 304, as per route 306) to the first destination (310) is initiated along a path (as per another specified portion of route 306), and wherein the path (as per another specified portion of route 306) includes a respective portion that does not require an input (as per NO at 808) to navigate through the respective portion (Figs. 3, 8; ¶34-40, 52-59).
As per Claim 7, the combination of Chowanic, Schunder, and Varoglu teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Chowanic further discloses wherein the set of one or more criteria (as per 802, 804, 808) includes a criterion that is met when a determination is made that the computer system (104) is within a first threshold distance (as per 808) from the intended traversal area (as per “within proximity to destination” in ¶56) (Figs. 3, 8; ¶34-40, 52-59).
As per Claim 9, the combination of Chowanic, Schunder, and Varoglu teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Chowanic further discloses:
after requesting input (as per “At operation 812, the VCS 104 queries the parking data server 126 for up-to-date parking data 130” in ¶58) with respect to the upcoming maneuver (as per “user interface 700 provides parking features in a turn-by-turn directional style” in ¶51; as per “At 814, the VCS 104 overlays the map 302 with end-of-journey parking indications” in ¶59), receiving (as per “The VCS 104 may receive updated parking data 130 from the parking data server 126 responsive to the parking query 128” in ¶58) a set of one or more inputs including one or more inputs with respect to the upcoming maneuver (as per “user interface 700 provides parking features in a turn-by-turn directional style” in ¶51; as per “At 814, the VCS 104 overlays the map 302 with end-of-journey parking indications” in ¶59) (Figs. 3, 8; ¶34-40, 52-59); and
in response to receiving (as per “The VCS 104 may receive updated parking data 130 from the parking data server 126 responsive to the parking query 128” in ¶58) the set of one or more inputs including the one or more input with respect to the upcoming maneuver (as per “user interface 700 provides parking features in a turn-by-turn directional style” in ¶51; as per “At 814, the VCS 104 overlays the map 302 with end-of-journey parking indications” in ¶59) (Figs. 3, 8; ¶34-40, 52-59) and in accordance with a determination that a path resulting from the set of one or more inputs does not meet a first set of criteria (as per NO at 810 via 814), requesting different input (as per second cycle of 812) with respect to the upcoming maneuver (as per “user interface 700 provides parking features in a turn-by-turn directional style” in ¶51; as per “At 814, the VCS 104 overlays the map 302 with end-of-journey parking indications” in ¶59) (Figs. 3, 8; ¶34-40, 52-59).
As per Claim 10, Chowanic discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (108) storing one or more programs (as per “instructions” in ¶20) configured to be executed by one or more processors (106) of a computer system (104) that is in communication with (as per “The VCS 104 may also drive or otherwise communicate with one or mor displays 114” in ¶22) one or more output components (114) (Figs. 1-3; ¶17-35), the one or more programs (as per “instructions” in ¶20) including instructions for:
receiving a request (via destination selection control 312) to navigate to a first destination (310) (Fig. 3; ¶34-40);
in response to receiving the request (via destination selection control 312), initiating navigation (as per vehicle indication 304, as per route 306) to the first destination (310) (Fig. 3; ¶34-40); and
while navigating (as per vehicle indication 304, as per route 306) to the first destination (310) and in accordance with a determination that a set of one or more criteria (as per 802, 804, 808) is met (as per YES at 802, 804, 808), wherein the set of one or more criteria (as per 802, 804, 808) includes a criterion that is met (as per 814 via 812 from YES at 808) when a determination is made that information is inadequate (as per “If the parking data 130 is older than a predefined amount of time” in ¶57) to determine an upcoming maneuver (as per “user interface 700 provides parking features in a turn-by-turn directional style” in ¶51; as per “At 814, the VCS 104 overlays the map 302 with end-of-journey parking indications” in ¶59) for an intended traversal area (as per “within proximity to destination” in ¶56), requesting input (as per “At operation 812, the VCS 104 queries the parking data server 126 for up-to-date parking data 130” in ¶58) with respect to the upcoming maneuver (as per “user interface 700 provides parking features in a turn-by-turn directional style” in ¶51; as per “At 814, the VCS 104 overlays the map 302 with end-of-journey parking indications” in ¶59) (Figs. 3, 8; ¶34-40, 52-59).
Chowanic does not expressly disclose:
wherein the navigating is via sensor data;
wherein the information involves the sensor data;
wherein the requesting is via the one or more output components; and
wherein the input is user input.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Schunder and Varoglu.
Therefore, from these teachings of Chowanic, Schunder, and Varoglu, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Schunder and Varoglu since doing so would enhance the system by: aiding the data provider in upselling data packages; and providing updates in response to changes in availability of specified spots within a parking structure. Applying the teachings of Schunder and Varoglu to the system of Chowanic would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the navigating is via sensor data” in that parking data (130) informing display of the map (as per 814 via 812 from YES at 808) as per Chowanic would be further informed by sensor data as per Varoglu;
“wherein the information involves the sensor data” in that the parking data (130) as per Chowanic would be further informed by sensor data as per Varoglu;
“wherein the requesting is via the one or more output components” in that the system of Chowanic would be adapted to present the user with the option to purchase updated tile data as per Schunder; and
“wherein the input is user input” in that the system of Chowanic would be responsive to user inputs involving purchase of updated tile data as per Schunder.
As per Claim 11, Chowanic discloses a computer system (104) that is in communication with (as per “The VCS 104 may also drive or otherwise communicate with one or mor displays 114” in ¶22) one or more output components (114) (Figs. 1-3; ¶17-35), comprising:
one or more processors (106) (Fig. 1; ¶20); and
memory (108) storing one or more programs (as per “instructions” in ¶20) configured to be executed by the one or more processors (106) (Fig. 1; ¶20), the one or more programs (as per “instructions” in ¶20) including instructions for:
receiving a request (via destination selection control 312) to navigate to a first destination (310) (Fig. 3; ¶34-40);
in response to receiving the request (via destination selection control 312), initiating navigation (as per vehicle indication 304, as per route 306) to the first destination (310) (Fig. 3; ¶34-40); and
while navigating (as per vehicle indication 304, as per route 306) to the first destination (310) and in accordance with a determination that a set of one or more criteria (as per 802, 804, 808) is met (as per YES at 802, 804, 808), wherein the set of one or more criteria (as per 802, 804, 808) includes a criterion that is met (as per 814 via 812 from YES at 808) when a determination is made that information is inadequate (as per “If the parking data 130 is older than a predefined amount of time” in ¶57) to determine an upcoming maneuver (as per “user interface 700 provides parking features in a turn-by-turn directional style” in ¶51; as per “At 814, the VCS 104 overlays the map 302 with end-of-journey parking indications” in ¶59) for an intended traversal area (as per “within proximity to destination” in ¶56) includes inadequate map data (as per “If the parking data 130 is older than a predefined amount of time” in ¶57) to determine an upcoming maneuver (as per “user interface 700 provides parking features in a turn-by-turn directional style” in ¶51; as per “At 814, the VCS 104 overlays the map 302 with end-of-journey parking indications” in ¶59), requesting input (as per “At operation 812, the VCS 104 queries the parking data server 126 for up-to-date parking data 130” in ¶58) with respect to the upcoming maneuver (as per “user interface 700 provides parking features in a turn-by-turn directional style” in ¶51; as per “At 814, the VCS 104 overlays the map 302 with end-of-journey parking indications” in ¶59) (Figs. 3, 8; ¶34-40, 52-59).
Chowanic does not expressly disclose:
wherein the navigating is via sensor data;
wherein the information involves the sensor data;
wherein the requesting is via the one or more output components; and
wherein the input is user input.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Schunder and Varoglu.
Therefore, from these teachings of Chowanic, Schunder, and Varoglu, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Schunder and Varoglu since doing so would enhance the system by: aiding the data provider in upselling data packages; and providing updates in response to changes in availability of specified spots within a parking structure. Applying the teachings of Schunder and Varoglu to the system of Chowanic would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the navigating is via sensor data” in that parking data (130) informing display of the map (as per 814 via 812 from YES at 808) as per Chowanic would be further informed by sensor data as per Varoglu;
“wherein the information involves the sensor data” in that the parking data (130) as per Chowanic would be further informed by sensor data as per Varoglu;
“wherein the requesting is via the one or more output components” in that the system of Chowanic would be adapted to present the user with the option to purchase updated tile data as per Schunder; and
“wherein the input is user input” in that the system of Chowanic would be responsive to user inputs involving purchase of updated tile data as per Schunder.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chowanic (US Pub. No. 2018/0315311) in view of Schunder (US Pub. No. 2012/0078512), further in view of Varoglu (US Pub. No. 2014/0309924), further in view of Honda (Honda Satellite-Linked Navigation System under Model Information: 2015 Honda Odyssey; http://owners.honda.com/vehicles/information/2015/Odyssey; available 2015 as per Wayback Machine).
As per Claim 8, the combination of Chowanic, Schunder, and Varoglu teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Chowanic further discloses wherein the VCS (104) initiates display of the depiction of parking availability responsive to determining that the vehicle (102) is within a predefined distance to a navigation destination of a route displayed to the map (302), the predefined distance defined in settings stored to the storage (108) of VCS (104), the predefined distance defined as driving into a dense city environment, and/or the predefined distance defined responsive to the vehicle (102) driving towards a home or favorite location (¶56).
Chowanic does not expressly disclose wherein the set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is met when a determination is made that the computer system is not moving and within a second threshold distance from the intended traversal area.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Schunder and Varoglu.
Honda discloses an instruction guide for a vehicle in which a calculated route is displayed on a map (“Map Screen Legend” graphic). To reduce the potential for driver distraction, certain functions are in operable or grayed out while the vehicle is moving (“Driver Distraction” section). Like Chowanic, Honda is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Chowanic, Schunder, Varoglu, and Honda, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Schunder, Varoglu, and Honda to the system of Chowanic since doing so would enhance the system by: by aiding the data provider in upselling data packages; providing updates in response to changes in availability of specified spots within a parking structure; and reducing potential driver distraction. Applying the teachings of Schunder, Varoglu, and Honda to the system of Chowanic would result in a system that operates “wherein the set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is met when a determination is made that the computer system is not moving and within a second threshold distance from the intended traversal area” in that the system would be adapted to lock out specified functionality depending on whether the vehicle is moving as per Honda, prompt the user for specified inputs in response to availability of map data as per Schunder, retrieve data from sensors as per Varoglu, and request updates to map data responsive to various distance considerations as per Chowanic.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 March 2026 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues the objections to the Abstract should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 6 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive. Therefore, these objections are not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 112 should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 6 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive as to the previously rejected claims. However, the amendments necessitated the new rejections presented above.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “the parking data disclosed in Chowanic does not constitute sensor data that is used to navigate” (page 8 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Chowanic in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Chowanic and Schunder are not maintained. However, the amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Chowanic is silent with respect to whether the stale parking data is adequate enough to determine an upcoming maneuver” (page 8 of Amendment).
However, consistent with citations in the rejections, Chowanic describes embodiments in which a displayed map (302) includes a destination location (310) that is overlayed with end-of-journey parking indications (314) indicating for each road segment of the intersection that the vehicle (102) may traverse the number of available parking spaces if the driver turns the respective direction indicated by each arrow as per the indications (314) (Fig. 3; ¶34-40), the end-of-journey parking indications (314) updated (as per 814 via 812) in response to a determination that the parking data is not up-to-date (as per 810) (Figs. 3, 8; ¶34-40, 52-59). In this way, the maneuver for parking near the destination (310) as indicated by the parking indications (314) is informed by determinations that the parking data (as per 810) is adequate (as per YES at 810) or inadequate (as per NO at 810) to provide up-to-date indications of upcoming parking maneuvers (as per 314/814) (Figs. 3, 8; ¶34-40, 52-59).
In this way, Chowanic discloses a system that operates by determining whether information “is inadequate to determine an upcoming maneuver” as claimed. As such, Applicant’s argument involves an improperly narrow interpretation of the claim language and/or an improperly narrow interpretation of the cited references. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Schunder does not cure the deficiencies of Chowanic” (page 8 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, the deficiencies alleged by Applicant are not present in any rejection. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Chowanic does not disclose ‘wherein the set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is met when a determination is made that the sensor data is inadequate to determine an upcoming maneuver for an intended traversal area, requesting via one more output components, user input with respect to the upcoming maneuver” in that “once the user provides the destination within destination location 312, a route to destination location 310 is determined” and “Accordingly, any upcoming maneuvers with respect to the navigation to destination 310 is already determined and provided to the user via routing information control 308 and/or route 306 when on-street parking feature 314 is displayed” (page 10-11 of Amendment).
As a preliminary matter, no rejection involves an assertion that Chowanic discloses all limitations in the claim language at issue. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not clearly relevant to the rejection of any claim.
Further, Applicant’s assertion that in Chowanic “any upcoming maneuvers with respect to the navigation to destination 310 is already determined and provided to the user via routing information control 308 and/or route 306 when on-street parking feature 314 is displayed” is not consistent with teachings as per the citations in the rejections in which the maneuver for parking near the destination (310) as indicated by the parking indications (314) is informed by determinations that the parking data (as per 810) is adequate (as per YES at 810) or inadequate (as per NO at 810) to provide up-to-date indications (as per 314/814) of upcoming parking maneuvers (Figs. 3, 8; ¶34-40, 52-59). As such, Applicant’s argument involves an improperly narrow interpretation of the claim language and/or an improperly narrow interpretation of the cited references. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Schunder suffers from similar deficiencies as Chowanic” in that “The display of the option to download new map tiles (e.g., as described above) does not correspond to an upcoming maneuver” and “Rather, this is simply presenting the user with an option to purchase an update to software” (page 11 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, the deficiencies alleged by Applicant are not present in any rejection. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Honda does not cure the deficiencies of Chowanic and Schunder” (page 12 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, the deficiencies alleged by Applicant are not present in any rejection. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Drury (US Patent No. 6,707,421) discloses a driver information system. Nakashima (US Pub. No. 2003/0033083) discloses a route guidance system, information delivery center, and vehicular route guidance apparatus.
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 STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights