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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 7/30/26, with respect to the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art.
As per Applicant’s request, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of the claims will be held in abeyance until indication of allowability.
Applicant's arguments and amendments with respect to the rejection of independent claims 21, 35 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued:
This assertion is respectfully traversed. Paragraph [0032] of Courtemanche merely describes matching an available provider 120 with a requester 110 based on a trip request. Therefore, it appears paragraph [0032] of Courtemanche has nothing to do with the features of claim 24 now included in claim 21. Moreover, while Courtemanche describes various geographic areas 400A, 400B, 400C, and 400D, Courtemanche does not disclose or suggest prioritizing these areas based on connectivity information or obtaining map data based on the priority. Instead, Courtemanche merely describes assigning more weight to geographic areas with more types of POIs that the user has previously traveled to (paragraph [0063]). In sum, Courtemanche does not disclose or suggest determining a priority of regions based on connectivity information associated with network connectivity available to the navigation device within the regions.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to paragraph [0064] of Courtemanche which states:
[0064] In some example embodiments, the pre-fetch module 102 is configured to generate a pre-fetch plan based on one or more of the factors discussed above (e.g., poor connectivity, high level of road complexity, points of interests). The pre-fetch plan may comprise a prioritization of map data items to pre-fetch for a route. The pre-fetch module 102 then uses this prioritization to determine what map data items to pre-fetch at any given time based on the available technical capacity (e.g., bandwidth, load capacity). The pre-fetch plan may be used by the pre-fetch module 102 to intelligently balance which requests for map data items are submitted at the beginning of a route, so that the work for the current view can be performed, while at the same time preparing for upcoming potential dead zones for connectivity. (Emphasis added).
Courtemanche, herein, clearly discloses prioritizing areas based on connectivity information and obtaining map data based on the priority (generate a pre-fetch plan based on one or more of the factors discussed above (e.g., poor connectivity)… uses this prioritization to determine what map data items to pre-fetch at any given time based on the available technical capacity (e.g., bandwidth, load capacity)… The pre-fetch plan may… prepar[e] for upcoming potential dead zones for connectivity.). Thus, Courtemanche does indeed disclose determining a priority of regions based on connectivity information associated with network connectivity available to the navigation device within the regions.
The Examiner respectfully reminds applicant of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (See MPEP 2111), "During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.) In Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court further elaborated on the “broadest reasonable interpretation" standard and recognized that “The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction." Thus, when interpreting claims, the courts have held that Examiners should (1) interpret claim terms as broadly as their terms reasonably allows and (2) interpret claim phrases as broadly as their construction reasonably allows. In conclusion, upon taking the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the cited references teach all of the claimed limitations and the rejections are maintained as below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,632. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are anticipated by the reference claim(s). Claim 1 of the Patent contains every element of claim 21 of the instant application as shown in the table below and as such anticipate(s) the claim of the instant application.
Claim 21 is rejected similarly as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,306.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Instant Application
Patent No. 11,689,632
21. A computer-implemented method comprising: determining, by a navigation device comprising one or more processors, a current region associated with a current location of the navigation device;
determining, by the navigation device, connectivity information associated with network connectivity available to the navigation device within one or more additional regions associated with one or more potential travel routes determined by the navigation device from the current region; and obtaining, by the navigation device based on the connectivity information, one or more portions of map data associated with a first region among the one or more additional regions in advance of the navigation device arriving at the first region, based on at least one of a travel time to the first region from the current region or a time needed to obtain the one or more portions of map data associated with the first region.
1. A computer-implemented method of providing offline maps, the computer-implemented method comprising: determining, by a computing system comprising one or more processors, a current region associated with a current location of a navigation device; determining, by the computing system, based at least in part on aggregated travel data, predicted travel destinations from the current region, wherein the aggregated travel data comprises previous travel destinations from within the current region which are associated with a plurality of navigation devices; determining, by the computing system, based at least in part on the current region and the predicted travel destinations, one or more additional regions associated with the current region; determining, by the computing system, connectivity information based at least in part on network data, wherein the connectivity information is associated with network connectivity available to the navigation device within each of the one or more additional regions; prioritizing, by the computing system, the one or more additional regions based at least in part on the connectivity information; and sending, by the computing system, one or more portions of offline map data associated with the respective one or more additional regions to the navigation device in an order based at least in part on the priority of the one or more additional regions.
---
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 24-33, 35 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Courtemanche et al. (2019/0392054).
As per claim 21, Courtemanche et al. teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: determining, by a navigation device comprising one or more processors, a current region associated with a current location of the navigation device [paragraph 0045];
determining, by the navigation device, connectivity information associated with network connectivity available to the navigation device within a plurality of additional regions respectively associated with one or more potential travel routes determined by the navigation device from the current region [paragraphs 0061-0062];
determining a priority of the plurality of additional regions based on the connectivity information [paragraph 0064]; and
obtaining, by the navigation device based on the priority of the plurality of additional regions and the connectivity information, one or more portions of map data associated with a first region among the plurality of additional regions in advance of the navigation device arriving at the first region at a time based on at least one of a travel time to the first region from the current region or a time needed to obtain the one or more portions of map data associated with the first region [paragraphs 0063-0064].
As per claim 24, Courtemanche et al. teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein prioritizing the plurality of additional regions is further based on a size of map data associated with respective regions among plurality of additional regions [paragraph 0032].
As per claim 25, Courtemanche et al. teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 24, wherein prioritizing the plurality of additional regions is further based on a proximity of the navigation device to each of the plurality of additional regions [paragraph 0041].
As per claim 26, Courtemanche et al. teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 24, wherein prioritizing the plurality of additional regions is further based on a throughput of each of the plurality of additional regions such that when the first region has a throughput less than a throughput of a second region among the plurality of additional regions, the first region is given a higher priority than the second region [paragraph 0055].
As per claim 27, Courtemanche et al. teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising: determining, by the navigation device, the one or more potential travel routes from the current region based on a plurality of predicted travel destinations; and generating, by the navigation device, the plurality of additional regions based on the current region and the plurality of predicted travel destinations [paragraph 0072].
As per claim 28, Courtemanche et al. teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 27, further comprising determining, by the navigation device, a size of each of the plurality of additional regions based on a predetermined data size that is used to determine a physical size of each region [paragraph 0046].
As per claim 29, Courtemanche et al. teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the connectivity information for each of the plurality of additional regions indicates at least one of a signal strength in one or more locations in each of the plurality of additional regions, a signal to noise ratio in one or more locations in each of the plurality of additional regions, or a network throughput in one or more locations in each of the plurality of additional regions [paragraph 0035].
As per claim 30, Courtemanche et al. teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the plurality of additional regions comprise plurality of additional regions adjacent to the current region, a plurality of additional regions within a predetermined distance from the current region, plurality of additional regions outside of a predetermined distance from the current region, or plurality of additional regions that overlap the current region [paragraph 0037].
As per claim 31, Courtemanche et al. teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising controlling one or more vehicle systems of a vehicle based on obtaining the one or more portions of map data associated with the first region [paragraph 0029].
As per claim 32, Courtemanche et al. teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 31, further comprising: providing, for presentation on a display of the vehicle, a map of a geographical area which includes the first region; and controlling an auditory system of the vehicle based on the vehicle approaching the first region [paragraph 0055].
As per claim 33, Courtemanche et al. teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 31, further comprising determining the time at which to obtain the one or more portions of map data associated with the first region, based on a velocity associated with the navigation device and a distance between a location of the navigation device and the first region [paragraph 0066].
Claims 35 and 38 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 22, 36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtemanche et al. (2019/0392054) in view Paoletti et al. (2020/0217670).
As per claim 22, Courtemanche et al. teaches the limitations of claim 21 as above but fails to explicitly teach, however, Paoletti et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the connectivity information indicates the network connectivity available to the navigation device within the first region is a first throughput level, and the one or more portions of the map data associated with the first region are obtained based on the first throughput level being less than a threshold level [Paoletti et al., paragraphs 0097-0099].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Courtemanche et al. with Paoletti et al. in order to provide a computing system with an adaptive map pre-caching mechanism and method that pre-caches map information to prevent interruption of the navigation services in areas of no or low connectivity while driving.
Claims 36 and 39 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 23, 34, 37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtemanche et al. (2019/0392054) in view of Efland (2020/0400441).
As per claim 23, Courtemanche et al. teaches the limitations of claim 21 as above but fails to explicitly teach, however, Efland in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein obtaining, by the navigation device based on the priority of the plurality of additional regions and the connectivity information, the one or more portions of the map data associated with the first region comprises: obtaining the one or more portions of the map data associated with the first region when a machine-learned model outputs a prediction the first region has a throughput level less than a threshold level [Efland, paragraph 0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Courtemanche et al. with Efland in order to progressively update map data based on input data obtained from various sources.
As per claim 34, Courtemanche-Efland teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the navigation device is installed in a vehicle as part of an in-vehicle navigation system [Efland, paragraph 0064].
Claims 37 and 40 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights