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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Switalski et al., US Patent Application Publication 2022/0048432 A1 (“Switalski”).
As per Claims 1, 9, 10, 11, and 12, regarding “a navigation device of a vehicle comprising: a processor; and memory storing instructions; wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the navigation device to while the vehicle is driving to the vehicle’s destination send using wireless communication in real-time a driving image of the vehicle captured at least one camera installed in the vehicle such that an external terminal located outside the vehicle receives the driving image of the vehicle, wherein the driving image of the vehicle includes visual information on a first branch path and a second branch path at a junction, into which the vehicle is capable of entering, and to receive from the external terminal driving assistance information generated based on at least one of a voice and a gesture of a user of the external terminal for the driving image from the external terminal wherein the external terminal receives a current location information of the vehicle”. Switalski in at least paragraph 13 discloses an image sensor for capturing video footage of the road ahead. Switalski in at least paragraph 23 further discloses that driving information may be transmitted to a remote data logging system after a driving incident (Switalski, paragraph 34). Further, regarding the new limitations, P1 discloses that the invention relates to a mobile device, such as a smartphone or temporarily installable device on the vehicle configured to log driving information such as video footage associated with how the vehicle is driven. This is real-time imagery. Moreover, P17 discloses that the mobile device is voice-activated, so this is the external terminal being activated by a voice or gesture of the user. Finally, P63, along with numerous other places discloses that the device sets a geographic map and route between a start (i.e. current) location and a destination location. P272 discloses a text displayed on the screen. As such, all new amendments are taught by Switalski. Specifically, the limitations above also states that the data is transmitted to a remote data logging system, which is equivalent to the external terminal being outside of the vehicle.
Regarding “output using at least one of a display and a speaker, a driving route of the vehicle corresponding to the target branch path among the first branch path and the second branch path in the real space corresponding to the driving image based on the driving assistance information. Switalski in at least paragraph 38 disclose the mobile device having a display and a speaker. Switalski in at least paragraph 255 discloses displaying to the driver alternative routes where events have occurred that cause traffic build up (for example accidents).
Note: The Examiner understands the amendments that are being made to try to distinguish the prior claims from the current ones. The prior claims did not explicitly show that the external terminal receives real-time information about a first and second branch path and determining which one of those branch paths is a target. However, the Examiner does not agree that this is not taught by Switalski. Citing to portions discussed above and in prior rejections. P255 does disclose that when an accident occurs, that the map can display alternative routes. This is a first and second branch, and the alternative route is the target. Moreover, P258 discloses that it is not just the external terminal using prestored data, but “data is recorded as the route is being traversed.” This is explicitly real-time recording of the actual route, which as discussed above, is done by capturing video information. P255 explicitly states that Switalski provides “real-time information about the journey progression.” Everything is happening in real-time, not just based on pre-stored information on an external device.
As per Claim 2, which depends from Claim 1, regarding “wherein the driving assistance information comprises display information inputted by a user of the external terminal for the driving image displayed on the external terminal, and the control unit displays the display information on the display unit together with the driving image displayed on the display unit”. Switalski in at least paragraph 255 discloses displaying to the driver alternative routes where events have occurred that cause traffic build up (for example accidents).
As per Claim 5, which depends from Claim 1, regarding “wherein the control unit displays driving route information for guiding the vehicle on the display unit”. Switalski in at least paragraphs 62 and 63 discloses “displaying on the mobile device’s screen driving route information”.
As per Claim 8, which depends from Claim 1, regarding “wherein if the external terminal and the communication unit are connected, the control unit simultaneously displays the driving image of the vehicle sent by the communication unit to the external terminal on the display unit”. Switalski in at least paragraph 23 further discloses that driving information may be transmitted to a remote data logging system after a driving incident (Switalski, paragraph 34). Switalski does not specifically disclose “displaying the driving image of the vehicle” on the display of the external terminal however; it would have been obvious, to modify Switalski to display the transmitted driving information on the remote data logging system with the motivation to provide the external terminal user a means for providing route guidance.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Switalski et al., US Patent Application Publication 2022/0048432 A1 (“Switalski”) as applied respectively to Claim 1 and Claim 5 and further in view of Obata, US Patent Application Publication 2005/0216190 A1.
A per Claims 3 and 4, which depends from Claim 1, regarding “wherein the control unit displays first display information, obtained by transforming the driving assistance information into arrow or text by superimposing or augmenting it over the driving image”. Switalski does not specifically disclose this limitation however; Obata in at least paragraph 35 disclose that the controller displays a guidance route superimposed on a map image on the screen of the display section 37 based on the map data, and further displays various types of menu screens (operation screens), the vehicle position mark, or the like, depending on an operational condition of the apparatus.
It would have been obvious, at time of the invention to one of ordinary skill, to combine by known methods and to achieve predictable results the well-known elements of Switalski navigation system with the equally well-known and existing elements of Obata’s vehicle navigation route guidance features with the motivation to overcome any route deviation issues (Obata, paragraph 14).
As per Claim 6, which depends from Claim 5, regarding “wherein the communication unit sends the driving route information to the external terminal”. Switalski in at least paragraph 23 further discloses that driving information may be transmitted to a remote data logging system after a driving incident (Switalski, paragraph 39).
As per Claim 7, which depends from Claim 1, regarding “wherein if the driving assistance information is voice information, the control unit outputs the voice information through a speaker”. Switalski in at least paragraph 38 disclose the mobile device having a display and a speaker but does not disclose outputting “driving assistance information” through a speaker however; Obata in at least paragraph 34 discloses voice guidance section 38, such as a speaker, for providing the user with the guidance information associated with the navigation by voice.
It would have been obvious, at time of the invention to one of ordinary skill, to combine by known methods and to achieve predictable results the well-known elements of Switalski navigation system with the equally well-known and existing elements of Obata’s vehicle navigation route guidance features with the motivation to overcome any route deviation issues (Obata, paragraph 14).
As discussed above, the route is displayed on a display screen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but are deemed unpersuasive. Applicant argues that Switalski is a black box system only activated when a predetermined event is detected.
The Examiner understands the amendments that are being made to try to distinguish the prior claims from the current ones. The prior claims did not explicitly show that the external terminal receives real-time information about a first and second branch path and determining which one of those branch paths is a target. However, the Examiner does not agree that this is not taught by Switalski. Citing to portions discussed above and in prior rejections. P255 does disclose that when an accident occurs, that the map can display alternative routes. This is a first and second branch, and the alternative route is the target. Moreover, P258 discloses that it is not just the external terminal using prestored data, but “data is recorded as the route is being traversed.” This is explicitly real-time recording of the actual route, which as discussed above, is done by capturing video information. P255 explicitly states that Switalski provides “real-time information about the journey progression.” Everything is happening in real-time, not just based on pre-stored information on an external device.
Regarding the arguments to the use of Obata, these are not focused on any particular claim limitation and as above Switalski already discuses a live driving image on a map to a user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYAN E WEISENFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6602. 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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 5712725109. 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.
ARYAN E. WEISENFELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3689
/ARYAN E WEISENFELD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights