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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Response dated 6/26/2026. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, however the request for foreign priority cannot yet be approved due to the lack of certified English copies, per requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), specifically 35 U.S.C. 119 (b)(3), see below.
(3) The Director may require a certified copy of the original foreign application, specification, and drawings upon which it is based, a translation if not in the English language, and such other information as the Director considers necessary. Any such certification shall be made by the foreign intellectual property authority in which the foreign application was filed and show the date of the application and of the filing of the specification and other papers.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, see pages 12-22 of 27, filed 6/26/2026, with respect to specification objections, claim objections, 112 rejections, and 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive, per Applicant amendments and arguments. The specification objections, claim objections, 112 rejections, and 101 rejections of record have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's first argument, see pages 22-24 of 27, filed 6/26/2026, has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that Hou “…does not obtain structured feature information describing a graphic feature of the target graphic itself…” however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim as currently presented, in view of the specification, is an understanding that a shape is drawn on a screen by a user, and that shape is analyzed according to specific points from the shape. Hou discloses points A, B, C, D, and E which are detected, as is the connecting shape.
Applicant's second argument, see pages 24-25 of 27, filed 6/26/2026, has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that Hou does not disclose a threshold and that the cited “highest fitting degree” does not apply to the claim, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim as currently presented merely states “…meets a preset threshold…” and does not detail what occurs if the preset threshold is not met. Hou’s “highest fitting degree” implies there is some sort of threshold met, otherwise there would be no way to indicate which shape has the highest fitting degree. The claim does not indicate what extent of the threshold must be met, and is therefore being interpreted broadly as a person of ordinary skill in the art would do.
A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 6, 12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hou et al. (US-2022/0333944; hereinafter Hou; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Hou discloses a method (see Hou at least Abs), comprising:
receiving a first operation that indicates a target graphic (see Hou at least Figs 4-6 and [0072] "As shown in FIG. 6A, when the user wants to plan a route from point A to point E, he or she may give out a route planning request by touching on a touch screen in the user interface. For example, the user may first touch the point A on the touch screen and then draw a curve from the point A to the point E, as shown in FIG. 6B...");
setting a target region on a map based on a user operation or a location of an electronic device (see Hou at least [0072] "…The road and traffic information associated with the line of interest may be road and traffic information within a predefined region covering the line of interest on the map...");
obtaining feature information of the target graphic in response to the first operation, wherein the feature information describes a graphic feature of the target graphic (see Hou at least Fig 6 and [0072] "...For example, the user may first touch the point A on the touch screen and then draw a curve from the point A to the point E, as shown in FIG. 6B... As shown in FIG. 6C, for example, based on the current road and traffic information, a plausible route A->B->C->E is determined as the navigation route best matching the drawn curve under the predefined road and traffic constraints.");
determining a target route based on the feature information and the target region (see Hou at least [0060] “In view of the above observations, a LOI based route planning process is proposed according to embodiments of the present application. Rather than one or more points of interest, the LOI based route planning process may determine a navigation route based on a line of interest. It means that rather than searching for a shortest or fastest route associated with one or more points of interest, the LOI based route planning process is to search for a navigation route best matching a line of interest drawn by a user under certain road and traffic constraints. More particularly, the LOI route planning process is performed by considering every point on the line of interest and calculating a navigation route most similar to the line of interest under predefined road and traffic constraints.” and [0072] “…As shown in FIG. 6C, for example, based on the current road and traffic information, a plausible route A->B->C->E is determined as the navigation route best matching the drawn curve under the predefined road and traffic constraints.”), wherein the target route is in the target region when a similarity between a first shape of the target route and a second shape of the target graphic meets a preset threshold (see Hou at least [0074] "...For example, the route planning device may first determine several potential navigation routes between the points A and E under the predefined road and traffic constraints, then calculate a fitting degree between each potential navigation route and the line of interest and determine a navigation route having a highest fitting degree as the navigation route best matching the line of interest."); and
displaying the target route on the map (see Hou at least [0080]-[0084] "…At operation 750, the route planning device may display the navigation route on the map.").
Regarding claim 6, Hou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the feature information comprises at least one of connection feature information (see Hou at least Fig 6 and [0072] "...Based on the acquired road and traffic information, a navigation route that best matches the line of interest and meanwhile meets predefined road and traffic constraints may be determined. As shown in FIG. 6C, for example, based on the current road and traffic information, a plausible route A->B->C->E is determined as the navigation route best matching the drawn curve under the predefined road and traffic constraints."), geometric feature information (see Hou at least Fig 6 and [0072] "...Based on the acquired road and traffic information, a navigation route that best matches the line of interest and meanwhile meets predefined road and traffic constraints may be determined. As shown in FIG. 6C, for example, based on the current road and traffic information, a plausible route A->B->C->E is determined as the navigation route best matching the drawn curve under the predefined road and traffic constraints."), angle feature information (see Hou at least Fig 6 and [0072] "...Based on the acquired road and traffic information, a navigation route that best matches the line of interest and meanwhile meets predefined road and traffic constraints may be determined. As shown in FIG. 6C, for example, based on the current road and traffic information, a plausible route A->B->C->E is determined as the navigation route best matching the drawn curve under the predefined road and traffic constraints."), size feature information (see Hou at least Fig 6 and [0072] "...Based on the acquired road and traffic information, a navigation route that best matches the line of interest and meanwhile meets predefined road and traffic constraints may be determined. As shown in FIG. 6C, for example, based on the current road and traffic information, a plausible route A->B->C->E is determined as the navigation route best matching the drawn curve under the predefined road and traffic constraints."), or location feature information (see Hou at least Fig 6 and [0072] "...Based on the acquired road and traffic information, a navigation route that best matches the line of interest and meanwhile meets predefined road and traffic constraints may be determined. As shown in FIG. 6C, for example, based on the current road and traffic information, a plausible route A->B->C->E is determined as the navigation route best matching the drawn curve under the predefined road and traffic constraints.").
Regarding claim 12, Hou discloses the analogous material of that in claim 1 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons. Additionally, Hou discloses the following:
…an apparatus (see Hou at least [0133]) comprising: a receiver, configured to receive a first operation that indicates a target graphic (see Hou at least [0031]-[0032]); one or more processors (see Hou at least [0024]-[0025])…a display configured to display the target route on the map (see Hou at least [0080]-[0084])…
Regarding claim 17, Hou discloses the analogous material of that in claim 6 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 20, Hou discloses the analogous material of that in claim 1 and claim 12 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
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 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.
Claims 3-5, 14-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (US-2022/0333944; hereinafter Hou; already of record) in view of Yoruk et al. (US-2021/0073574; hereinafter Yoruk; already of record).
Regarding claim 3, Hou discloses the method of claim 1. However, Hou does not explicitly disclose the following:
obtaining the feature information comprises:
performing abstraction processing on the target graphic to obtain a target abstract graphic of the target graphic, wherein the target abstract graphic describes a key point in the target graphic or a connection relationship between key points in the target abstract graphic; and
obtaining the feature information based on the target abstract graphic.
Yoruk, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
obtaining the feature information comprises:
performing abstraction processing on the target graphic to obtain a target abstract graphic of the target graphic (see Yoruk at least Fig 6 and [0082] "FIG. 6 is a diagram of a geometric abstraction of a key region 82 around a key point (x,y) of a portion of a captured image that the image-processing circuit 42 selects, according to an embodiment. Although shown as being a square, the key region 82 can have any other suitable shape."), wherein the target abstract graphic describes a key point in the target graphic or a connection relationship between key points in the target abstract graphic (see Yoruk at least Fig 6 and [0082] "FIG. 6 is a diagram of a geometric abstraction of a key region 82 around a key point (x,y) of a portion of a captured image that the image-processing circuit 42 selects, according to an embodiment. Although shown as being a square, the key region 82 can have any other suitable shape."); and
obtaining the feature information based on the target abstract graphic (see Yoruk at least Fig 6 and [0082] "FIG. 6 is a diagram of a geometric abstraction of a key region 82 around a key point (x,y) of a portion of a captured image that the image-processing circuit 42 selects, according to an embodiment. Although shown as being a square, the key region 82 can have any other suitable shape.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the input data as disclosed by Hou with an abstraction such as taught by Yoruk with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of streamlined analytics, such as a comparison of a “target abstract graphic” against a map depicting a specific region to allow for the determination of alignment (see Yoruk at least [0019]).
Regarding claim 4, Hou in view of Yoruk teach the method of claim 3, further comprising:
matching, based on first feature information, first routes in the target region to obtain at least one successfully matched first target subroute (see Hou at least Fig 6C, [0072] "...In response to the route planning request, the processor may identify the curve drawn by the user as a line of interest. Then the processor may acquire, via the data interface, road and traffic information associated with the line of interest from the road and traffic data source. The road and traffic information associated with the line of interest may be road and traffic information within a predefined region covering the line of interest on the map..." [0074] "From the point A to the point E, there may be several potential navigation routes meeting the predefined road and traffic constraints, but the route planning device is to determine a certain navigation route best matching the line of interest drawn by the user..." and [0075] "Alternatively, according to the road layout on the map, there may be several intersections associated with the curve from the point A to the point E, so the curve from the point A to the point E may be divided into several sections. For each section, the route planning device may determine the intersections that the navigation route may pass through in order to best fit the section..."); and
matching, based on second feature information, second routes in a surrounding region of a third target subroute of the at least one successfully matched first target subroute to obtain a successfully matched second target subroute (see Hou at least Fig 6C and Fig 6G; points A, B, C, E designated as the “first target subroute”, points A, B, D designated as the “second target subroute”, points D, E designated as the “third target subroute”),
wherein the first feature information and the second feature information are partial information of the feature information (see Hou at least [0072] "...For example, the user may first touch the point A on the touch screen and then draw a curve from the point A to the point E, as shown in FIG. 6B... As shown in FIG. 6C, for example, based on the current road and traffic information, a plausible route A->B->C->E is determined as the navigation route best matching the drawn curve under the predefined road and traffic constraints."), and
wherein the successfully matched second target subroute and the third target subroute form the target route (see Hou at least Fig 6G; points A, B, D designated as the “second target subroute”, points D, E designated as the “third target subroute”).
Regarding claim 5, Hou in view of Yoruk teach the method of claim 3, wherein determining the target route further comprises:
determining a plurality of candidate routes based on the target graphic and the target region on the map (see Hou at least [0074] "...For example, the route planning device may first determine several potential navigation routes between the points A and E under the predefined road and traffic constraints, then calculate a fitting degree between each potential navigation route and the line of interest and determine a navigation route having a highest fitting degree as the navigation route best matching the line of interest."); and
determining the target route from the plurality of candidate routes based on a preset condition, wherein the preset condition comprises at least one of a similarity between the first shape of the target route and the second shape of the target abstract graphic meets a first threshold, a length of the target route meets a second threshold, or the target route passes through a specified region, and wherein the specified region is preset (see Hou at least [0074] "...For example, the route planning device may first determine several potential navigation routes between the points A and E under the predefined road and traffic constraints, then calculate a fitting degree between each potential navigation route and the line of interest and determine a navigation route having a highest fitting degree as the navigation route best matching the line of interest.").
Regarding claim 14, Hou in view of Yoruk teach the analogous material of that in claim 3 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 15, Hou in view of Yoruk teach the analogous material of that in claim 4 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 16, Hou in view of Yoruk teach the analogous material of that in claim 5 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 21, Hou in view of Yoruk teach the analogous material of that in claim 3 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 7-10, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (US-2022/0333944; hereinafter Hou; already of record) in view of Xu et al. (US-2019/0063926; hereinafter Xu; already of record from IDS).
Regarding claim 7, Hou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the first operation comprises receiving the first operation via a first interface, and wherein displaying the target route comprises displaying the target route on the map (see Hou at least [0032] "User interface 170 may be equipped with one or more processing devices configured to provide and receive information to or from a user and process that information for use by, for example, the application processor 180…" and [0080]-[0084] "…At operation 750, the route planning device may display the navigation route on the map.") …
However, Hou discloses both receiving a first operation and displaying the target route on the same interface, and thus does not explicitly disclose the following:
…the map is on a second interface.
Xu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…the map is on a second interface (see Xu at least [0116] "...As shown in FIG. 1.1a, the graphical user interface of the electronic device is divided into a first display area and a second display area. The first display area includes two option boxes for route shape planning: a “manual input” option box and a “graphic library” option box. The “manual input” option box is used to enable a function of manually entering a route shape. The “graphic library” option box is used to enable a selection function of a graphic library. The second display area may display map information specified by the user. As shown in FIG. 1.1a, after the user taps the “manual input” option box, the first display area is switched to an input interface shown in FIG. 1.1b. The user may manually enter a route shape on the input interface. When the user enters a letter “Z” on the input interface, a route matching the letter “Z” is mapped in the second display area, for example, a route marked in FIG. 1.1b.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the route planning method as disclosed by Hou with two interfaces such as taught by Xu with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of planning a route according to a map’s regional qualities (see Xu at least [0054]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 8, Hou in view of Xu teach the method of claim 7, wherein the first operation comprises drawing the target graphic on the first interface (see Hou at least [0062] "As illustrated in FIG. 4A, a user draws a travel line using a finger or an electronic pencil on a map displayed on a user interface of a route planning device…").
Regarding claim 9, Hou in view of Xu teach the method of claim 7, wherein the first interface is a gallery interface (see Xu at least Fig 1.2), wherein the gallery interface comprises at least one locally stored graphic (see Xu at least [0117] "Referring to FIG. 1.2a and FIG. 1.2b, FIG. 1.2a is another graphical user interface of an electronic device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure, and FIG. 1.2b is another graphical user interface of an electronic device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 1.2a, the graphical user interface of the electronic device is divided into a first display area and a second display area. The first display area includes two option boxes for route shape planning: a “manual input” option box and a “graphic library” option box. The “manual input” option box is used to enable a function of manually entering a route shape. The “graphic library” option box is used to enable a selection function of a graphic library. The second display area may display map information specified by the user. As shown in FIG. 1.2a, when the user taps the “graphic library” option box, the first display area is switched to a graphical interface shown in FIG. 1.2b. The graphical interface includes multiple graphics. The user may select a graphic on the graphical interface as a route shape. When the user selects a graphic “U” on the graphical interface, a route matching the graphic “U” is mapped in the second display area, for example, a route marked in FIG. 1.2b."), wherein receiving the first operation on the first interface comprises receiving the first operation on the target graphic, and wherein the target graphic is in the at least one locally stored graphic (see Xu at least Fig 1.2, [0100] "In this embodiment of the present disclosure, the specified route shape is a route shape specified by a user before the user does a workout or a route shape specified by a system by default before a user does a workout. The route shape specified by the user may be manually entered by the user on the electronic device, for example, a digit, a letter, a symbol, or a pattern, or is specified by the user by selecting a graphic in a graphic library provided on the electronic device; or may be a shape specified in cyberspace by using a network connection." and [0117] "…The user may select a graphic on the graphical interface as a route shape. When the user selects a graphic “U” on the graphical interface, a route matching the graphic “U” is mapped in the second display area, for example, a route marked in FIG. 1.2b.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the route planning method as disclosed by Hou with a gallery interface such as taught by Xu with a reasonable expectation of success for the ease of selecting a desired route shape rather than having to draw it (see Xu at least [0116]-[0117]).
Regarding claim 10, Hou in view of Xu teach the method of claim 7, wherein the first interface is a candidate graphic interface (see Xu at least Fig 1.2), wherein the candidate graphic interface comprises at least one candidate graphic (see Xu at least [0117] "Referring to FIG. 1.2a and FIG. 1.2b, FIG. 1.2a is another graphical user interface of an electronic device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure, and FIG. 1.2b is another graphical user interface of an electronic device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 1.2a, the graphical user interface of the electronic device is divided into a first display area and a second display area. The first display area includes two option boxes for route shape planning: a “manual input” option box and a “graphic library” option box. The “manual input” option box is used to enable a function of manually entering a route shape. The “graphic library” option box is used to enable a selection function of a graphic library. The second display area may display map information specified by the user. As shown in FIG. 1.2a, when the user taps the “graphic library” option box, the first display area is switched to a graphical interface shown in FIG. 1.2b. The graphical interface includes multiple graphics. The user may select a graphic on the graphical interface as a route shape. When the user selects a graphic “U” on the graphical interface, a route matching the graphic “U” is mapped in the second display area, for example, a route marked in FIG. 1.2b."), wherein receiving the first operation on the first interface comprises receiving the first operation on a target candidate graphic, and wherein the target candidate graphic is a graphic in the at least one candidate graphic (see Xu at least [0117] "…The user may select a graphic on the graphical interface as a route shape. When the user selects a graphic “U” on the graphical interface, a route matching the graphic “U” is mapped in the second display area, for example, a route marked in FIG. 1.2b.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the route planning method as disclosed by Hou with a candidate graphic interface such as taught by Xu with a reasonable expectation of success for the ease of selecting a desired route shape rather than having to draw it (see Xu at least [0116]-[0117]).
Regarding claim 18, Hou in view of Xu teach the analogous material of that in claim 7 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 22, Hou in view of Xu teach the analogous material of that in claim 7 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (US-2022/0333944; hereinafter Hou; already of record) in view of Lynn (US-2018/0080792; already of record).
Regarding claim 11, Hou discloses the method of claim 1. However, while Hou discloses a route from point A to point E that may be divided into several sections, and the recognition of intersections within a region used to create the sections along a route (see Hou at least [0075]), Hou does not explicitly disclose the following:
determining the target route comprises:
segmenting the target region to obtain N target sub-regions, wherein N is a positive integer greater than 1;
prioritizing the N target sub-regions based on target feature information to obtain a priority sequence in which the N target sub-regions comprising more routes corresponding to the target feature information have a higher priority, and wherein the target feature information is partial information of the feature information; and
performing matching on the N target sub-regions based on the feature information and the priority sequence.
Lynn, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
determining the target route comprises:
segmenting the target region to obtain N target sub-regions, wherein N is a positive integer greater than 1 (see Lynn at least Fig 9 and [0072] "FIG. 9 shows an exemplary route created from a template for electronic route creation, according to an aspect of the present disclosure. In FIG. 9, a user has traced an electronic route on a preset grid, and then identified 11 check-in points X1 through X11. The user may create the route and the check-in points for an entity as part of a contest, so that users who wish to travel the route shown in FIG. 9 may compete to see who can complete the route within guidelines set by the entity. For example, the contest may require that users complete the route in a certain time period such as two hours, or by checking into at least 9 of the 11 check-in points X1 through X11, or by straying off of the designated path by 100 meters or more for no more than 40 minutes during travel or by no more than a set percentage of travel time. Of course, a contest may impose other rules on users who wish to travel the route shown in FIG. 9, and such rules may be set by the entity that creates the route shown. The technology disclosed herein integrates location information and the interactive functionality so as to automatically compare the route with the actual travel and check-ins by the user who travels the route.");
prioritizing the N target sub-regions based on target feature information to obtain a priority sequence in which the N target sub-regions comprising more routes corresponding to the target feature information have a higher priority, and wherein the target feature information is partial information of the feature information (see Lynn at least Fig 9 and [0072] "FIG. 9 shows an exemplary route created from a template for electronic route creation, according to an aspect of the present disclosure. In FIG. 9, a user has traced an electronic route on a preset grid, and then identified 11 check-in points X1 through X11…"); and
performing matching on the N target sub-regions based on the feature information and the priority sequence (see Lynn at least Fig 9 and [0072] "FIG. 9 shows an exemplary route created from a template for electronic route creation, according to an aspect of the present disclosure. In FIG. 9, a user has traced an electronic route on a preset grid, and then identified 11 check-in points X1 through X11...").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the target region as disclosed by Hou with target subregions such as taught by Lynn with a reasonable expectation of success so as to allow for a specific route to be created that aligns with desirable keypoints (see Lynn at least [0068]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 19, Hou in view of Lynn teach the analogous material of that in claim 11 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dewan et al. (US-2020/0217680) teaches the creation of routes according to user preferences.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights