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 .
1. This action is responsive to amendment received August 12/2026.
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.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemec et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,688,306 (referred to hereafter as Nemec) in view of Denise, U.S. Patent No. 8,417,448.
As to claims 1, 8 and 15, Nemec teaches a method, medium and system comprising:
determining, by a navigation application executing on a computing device, a first route between an origin and a destination (see col. 15 lines 38-40);
displaying, by the navigation application, a first set of information corresponding to the first route as the computing device moves along the first route, the first set of information being displayed on a map (see fig. 5-6);
based on a current location of the computing device, determining that the computing device has deviated from the first route (see col. 16 lines 55-col. 17 lines 11); and
responsive to determining that the computing device has deviated from the route: (see col. 16 lines 55-col. 17 lines 11 and fig. 11);
executing the rerouting operation to determine a second route from the current location to the destination (see col. 16 lines 55-67); and
displaying a second set of information corresponding to the second route, the second set of information being displayed on the map (see col. 16 lines 55-67, alternate route is displayed to the driver).
Nemec does not explicitly teach prior to displaying the second route, displaying a label indicating that the rerouting operation is being performed.
However, Denise teaches a system and method for displaying routes and determining if a driver missed a turn. In response to the determination, prior to displaying the second route, displaying a label indicating that the rerouting operation is being performed (see col. 3 lines 52-67).
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the at the effective filling data of the application to displaying a label indicating that the rerouting operation is being performed prior to the displaying step in Nemec as taught by Denise. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Denise that doing so would assist the user more effectively by perceiving description of the direction that the driver is supposed to follow.
As to claims 2, 9 and 16, Nemec in view of Denise teach the method, medium and system of claims 1, 8 and 15. Nemec further teaches the label is displayed subsequent to removing the first set of information corresponding to the first route from the map (see fig. 6, 8 and 10-11, route is initially displayed. If user deviates, then display in fig. 11 is generated).
As to claims 3, 10 and 17, Nemec in view of Denise teach the method, medium and system of claims 1, 8 and 15. Nemec further teaches the label is displayed prior to displaying the second set of information on the map (see fig. 6, 8 and 10-11).
As to claims 4, 11 and 18, Nemec in view of Denise teach the method, medium and system of claims 1, 8 and 15. Nemec further teaches the operations further comprise: while displaying the label, displaying the current location of the computing device on the map (see fig. 7 and 10).
As to claims 5, 12 and 19, Nemec in view of Denise teach the method, medium and system of claims 1, 8 and 15. Nemec further teaches no route information is displayed on the map while displaying the label (see fig. 7 and 10).
As to claims 6, 13 and 20, N Nemec in view of Denise teach the method, medium and system of claims 1, 8 and 15. Nemec further teaches displaying, by the navigation application, a presentation of the first route on a display of the computing device; displaying the label on the display while displaying the presentation (see fig. 5).
As to claims 7 and 14, Nemec in view of Denise teach the method, medium and system of claims 6 and 13. Nemec further teaches subsequent to executing the rerouting operation: displaying a second presentation of the second route (see col. 16 lines 55-67).
3. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
4. 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.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights