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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/20/2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 02/26/2026. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 have been amended. Claim(s) 1-20 are pending examination. Rejection to claim(s) 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 over the 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are allowable over the prior art in light of the amendments. In particular applicant asserts that the newly amended portions reciting, “by sequentially comparing actual elapsed time corresponding to a plurality of sequential points along a route of the vehicle to predicted elapsed times corresponding to the plurality of sequential points” and “in response to a determination that the actual progress is different than the predicted progress, modifying an appearance of the vehicle icon differently, depending on whether the actual progress is greater or less than the predicted progress,” is not taught by any of the cited prior art. Accordingly claims 1-20 would be allowable.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner finds it moot. Upon further search and consideration the examiner would rely on newly cited portions of van Dok and Wagner.
Firstly, the limitation of, “by sequentially comparing actual elapsed time corresponding to a plurality of sequential points along a route of the vehicle to predicted elapsed times corresponding to the plurality of sequential points,” would be covered by newly cited portions of Wagner. Looking at FIGS. 3A, 3B, 3C, 4, 5A, 5B, and 6; and [0044]-[0046] the system determines a travel time of each road segment, [0033]. Further, “travel progress may be monitored and the optical indicators for travel times may be updated in dependence on the monitored travel progress. For this purpose, the current vehicle position may be determined by the GPS-receiver 112 of the navigation device, for example of the devices 100, 200 of FIGS. 1 & 2, and a current time may be compared to the road segment travel time of the road segment on which the vehicle is currently located. If the current time and this road segment travel time--i.e., the expected time of arrival at the road segment--differ by a predetermined amount, the optical indicators for the plurality of positions may be correspondingly updated.” (Emphasis added). The system of Wagner clearly would compare expected travel times to actual times for various road segments, i.e. sequential points. The road segments are analogous to these sequential points. Wagner would teach this limitation.
Secondly, the limitation of, “in response to a determination that the actual progress is different than the predicted progress, modifying an appearance of the vehicle icon differently, depending on whether the actual progress is greater or less than the predicted progress,” would be covered by van Dok in view of Jang. Looking at [0197]-[0199] of van Dok it is taught that, “representation of the path ahead is shaded dark in the region 440, and may be red in use, indicating that the user is in traffic…the current position 400 is nearing a region along the length of the path representation where the dark shading 440 indicating the traffic jam transitions to a lighter grey 430. Now the region 407 indicates that only 200 metres of traffic jam remain.” (Emphasis added). The teachings of van Dok show a system in which the vehicle display would alter the colors of display depending on the current status of the trip, this can include progress through traffic and delays. Van Dok does not teach altering the “vehicle icon.” This is where Jang comes in as seen in Figs. 3 and 5; [0027]-[0029] and [0034]-[0036], which teaches various ways to alter a vehicle icon on a graphical display to show multiple kinds of information to the driver. The incorporation of the two would show that the display system can teach modifying the vehicle icon based on travel progress.
In light of the above, the examiner would find the independent claims as obvious. Claims 1, 8, and 15, at least would be rejected under 35 USC 103. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 would be rejected at least due to their dependence on rejected claims. See the section below titled, “Claims Rejections – 35 USC 103,” for detailed mapping and explanation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Dok (US PG Pub 2015/0241239) in view of Quint, (US PG Pub 2023/0418449) Wagner, (US PG Pub 2008/0162033) and Jang (US PG Pub 2007/0171093)
Regarding claim 1, van Dok teaches a method, comprising: responsive to a selection of a navigation capability, presenting: (Fig. 5 and [0162]-[0163] teach a navigation capable device guiding a user from a location to a destination)
on a first portion of an interface, an overview of a progress of a vehicle from an origin to a destination, (Fig 5 item 108 and [163] teach an overview of the route progress by showing a route bar which represents the vehicle traveling from an origin to a destination) wherein a vehicle icon represents the vehicle, (Fig. 5 item 110 and [0163] teach a progress bar, this bar includes a chevron 110, that servers as a graphical representation of the vehicle) and
on a second portion of the interface, an estimated time of arrival of the vehicle at the destination (Fig. 5, item 118 and [0168] teach a representation of a vehicle eta for the route) and
continuously comparing an actual progress of the vehicle to the destination to a predicted progress of the vehicle ([0168] teaches the system using a predetermined route that takes the vehicle from the origin to the destination, the system determines that a delay has occurred and displays this information. This would be analogous to determining that actual progress is delayed compared to expected progress)
in response to a determination that the actual progress is different than the predicted progress, modifying an appearance([0197]-[0199] teach the system determining the progress of the vehicle through a given point in the road trip, i.e. a traffic jam. This system can then determine how the progress is an in return modify an appearance of the screen. This is achieved by changing colors and shading of various elements of the screen)
van Dok does not teach a time remaining until reaching the destination; by sequentially comparing actual elapsed time corresponding to a plurality of sequential points along a route of the vehicle to predicted elapsed times corresponding to the plurality of sequential points; and modifying an appearance of the vehicle icon differently.
However, Quint teaches “a time remaining until reaching the destination” (Figs. 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B, item 106b, as well as [0022]-[0024] which teaches a graphic display element that reflects the total time remaining in a drive, the estimated time of arrival, and the distance remaining)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of van Dok with Quint; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both teach UI systems for vehicle trips. These UIs display relevant information for a driver. Showing the remaining time of a trip gives the driver the most information possible to understand what’s left. As van Dok shows progress in miles remaining the addition of time remaining would make it easier for a driver to see how long the trip has left.
The combination of van Dok and Quint does not teach by sequentially comparing actual elapsed time corresponding to a plurality of sequential points along a route of the vehicle to predicted elapsed times corresponding to the plurality of sequential points; modifying an appearance of the vehicle icon differently.
However, Wagner teaches “by sequentially comparing actual elapsed time corresponding to a plurality of sequential points along a route of the vehicle to predicted elapsed times corresponding to the plurality of sequential points” (FIGS. 3A, 3B, 3C, 4, 5A, 5B, and 6; [0033] and [0044]-[0046] teach the system determining an expected travel time for a road segment. This travel time is used to determine progress of the vehicle by determining for each road segment if the vehicle is making progress compared to the expected progress in time)
would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of van Dok, Quint, with Wagner; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the display of navigational information. As taught in [0045]-[0046] the use of travel progress indications and comparisons to expected time allow for a more complete route profile. Wagner allows the user to see how far off the mark they are. Van Dok shows delayed time estimates but not an outright display of how delayed you are compared to expected time. While both have their strengths the use of both kinds of information sharing would allow for a user to better know how late they are comparatively and if they would need to alter a course or other corrective action in order to arrive closer to an expected time.
The combination of van Dok, Quint, and Wagner does not teach modifying an appearance of the vehicle icon differently.
However, Jang teaches “modifying an appearance of the vehicle icon differently.” (Fig. 3 and [0027]-[0029] teach modifying the vehicle icon responsive to changes in vehicle conditions, including speed and speed limits, i.e. exceeding or traveling below the speed limit. This would convey to a driver the relative speed on a route they are traveling. Fig. 5 and [0034]-[0036] further teach the system modifying the icon in relation to changes in conditions)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of van Dok, Quint, and Wagner with Jang; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the display of navigational instructions for a driver of a vehicle to follow. As [0012] of Jang teaches “using this approach, a driver may avoid difficulties associated with visually filtering, identifying or recognizing relevant information.” This allows the driver to quickly notice changes in relevant navigation conditions. As the user sees that they’re vehicle representation is now alternate colors.
Additionally, it would be an obvious rearrangement of parts, MPEP 2144.04.VI.C. to change the color of the vehicle icon to indicate progress. As van Dok teaches in [0165], [0176], and [0182], the system will alter the display of the route progress bar to indicate delays in the route travels. This includes adding balloons, changing colors, or other appropriate changes to indicate to a driver that a delay is expected. The modifying of the vehicle icon rather than the progress bar would merely be shifting where the information is on a display and would be an obvious design modification.
Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of van Dok, and Quint, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the of presenting the overview of the progress of the vehicle from the origin to the destination comprises: displaying a map comprising the origin and the destination; (Fig. 5 items 102 and 104 and [0162] teach the display of a route between a location and a destination)
superimposing, on the map, an indication of the route; (Fig 5 and [0162] teach superimposing the route of travel on the map between 102 and 104) and
superimposing, on the map, an indication of the vehicle (Fig. 5, item 102; and [0162] teach superimposing a vehicle onto the map)
The combination of van Dok and Quint does not teach superimposing, on the map, an indication of the vehicle and an indication of vehicle progress to the destination compared to a predicted vehicle progress.
However, Wagner teaches “superimposing, on the map, an indication of the vehicle and an indication of vehicle progress to the destination compared to a predicted vehicle progress.” ([0046] teaches comparing the expected travel position of a vehicle to a current position and visually updating a plethora of map features to reflect this delayed travel time)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of van Dok, Quint, and Jang with Wagner; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the display of navigational information. As taught in [0045]-[0046] the use of travel progress indications and comparisons to expected time allow for a more complete route profile. Wagner allows the user to see how far off the mark they are. Van Dok shows delayed time estimates but not an outright display of how delayed you are compared to expected time. While both have their strengths the use of both kinds of information sharing would allow for a user to better know how late they are comparatively and if they would need to alter a course or other corrective action in order to arrive closer to an expected time.
Claims 9 and 16 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale.
Regarding claim 3, van Dok teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the presenting of the estimated time of arrival at the destination and the time remaining until reaching the destination comprises: determining a likelihood of the vehicle reaching the destination at the estimated time of arrival, based on one or more of weather, traffic, road conditions, time of day, or accidents; ([0072]-[0073] teach obtaining traffic, and weather information as well as additional hazards present) and
displaying the likelihood via the second portion of the interface. ([0165] and [0168] teach displaying the total delay expected in the trip via a change of color of an item or by displaying a calculated delay time)
Claims 10 and 17 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Dok, Quint, Wagner, and Jang in view of Kawai (US PG Pub 2009/0267801).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of van Dok, Quint, Wagner, and Jang teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of van Dok, Quint, Wagner, and Jang does not teach receiving a live video of a location associated with an upcoming change of direction; determining a position of the vehicle within the live video; and superimposing a visual representation of the vehicle the corresponds to its position in the live video, wherein the visual representation is oriented toward the upcoming change of direction.
However, Kawai teaches “receiving a live video of a location associated with an upcoming change of direction;” (Fig 17 and [0076] teach the vehicle receiving live video data of an upcoming scene i.e. and intersection where the vehicle is navigating) “determining a position of the vehicle within the live video;” (Fig. 17 items S13-S16 and [0076]-[0077] teach the determination of the location within the scene) and “superimposing a visual representation of the vehicle that corresponds to its position in the live video,” (Fig 17 item S18, Fig 13, and [0078] teach superimposing a visual representation of the vehicle on the live video) “wherein the visual representation is oriented toward the upcoming change of direction.” ([0089] teaches the system as able to select the video and superimposing on the video based on the change in direction status of a vehicle, i.e. selected a perpendicular view of the road when the vehicle is attempting to turn)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of van Dok, Quint, Wagner, and Jang with Kawai; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the display of vehicle information on a screen and presenting some form of navigational data for the driver of a vehicle. As Kawai adds this video display of an upcoming action it allows for a safer driving environment. As taught in [0010]-[0012] the use of a live video of an upcoming action with a superimposed representation of the main vehicle allows a driver to perform safer. The driver is more aware of any potential moving objects, i.e. cars or pedestrians. This allows the driver to make a more informed decision about when and how to make a change in direction. It would improve safety for the driver and all those around them.
Claims 11 and 18 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Dok, Quint, Wagner, and Jang in view of Zhou (US PG Pub 2023/0092830).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of van Dok, Quint, Wagner, and Jang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, in response to the selection of the navigation capability, the method comprises: presenting, on a third portion of the interface a predicted action for the vehicle to take to reach the destination, (Fig. 5, top portion turn arrow; Fig 7, item 350; [0014] and [0183] teach the system determining some kind of action for the vehicle to take to reach the destination and displaying it on some third portion of the display, this includes upcoming turns, route changes, and other relevant maneuvers)
Wherein the method further comprises: determining an area associated with the upcoming action; (Fig. 5 item 115 and [0167] teach a determination of a distance between the vehicle and a location; said location would include part of an action such as merging, turning or other navigational step)
The combination of van Dok, Quint, Wagner, and Jang does not teach obtaining a live video of the area from another vehicle that has passed the area and is proximate to the vehicle; and presenting the live video on the first portion of the interface.
However, Zhou teaches “obtaining a live video of the area from another vehicle that has passed the area” ([0094] teaches obtaining live and/or recorded vide from an upcoming road section; [0093] teaches the video may come from a static device or a vehicle that has recently been in the area) “and is proximate to the vehicle;” ([0139] teaches determining that the host vehicle is at least within a proximate distance threshold of the capturing device) and “presenting the live video on the first portion of the interface.” (Fig. 5D item 502D and [0116] teach the display of the live video of the area)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of van Dok, Quint, Wagner, and Jang with Zhou; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the presentation of vehicle navigation data to a driver of a vehicle. Both also deal with areas that may have increased traffic or other situations where a driver may need to make a move on the road. The traffic situation on the road could prevent the driver from accurately moving in time or getting stuck in unnecessary delays. According to Zhou [0003]-[0008] the use of live video of various road sections improves driver safety and comfort as they approach an upcoming road section. This improved driver confidence would allow for better driving all around and ensure that the road is safe for all.
Claims 12 and 19 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Dok, Quint, Wagner, and Jang in view of Bone (US PG Pub 2014/0067250).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of van Dok, Quint, Wagner, and Jang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in response to the selection of the navigation capability, the method comprises, presenting, on a third portion of the interface a predicted action for the vehicle to take to reach the destination, (Fig. 5, top portion turn arrow; Fig 7, item 350; [0014] and [0183] teach the system determining some kind of action for the vehicle to take to reach the destination and displaying it on some third portion of the display, this includes upcoming turns, route changes, and other relevant maneuvers)
and
The combination of van Dok, Quint, Wagner, and Jang does not teach w wherein, in response to the predicted action comprising the vehicle moving to a different lane, the method further comprises: determining that a gap between the vehicle and another vehicle in the different lane will be present for a time period; requesting the vehicle move into the different lane within the time period; and superimposing a visual representation of the vehicle, wherein the visual representation reflects an amount of remaining time in the time period.
However, Bone teaches “wherein, in response to the predicted action comprising the vehicle moving to a different lane, the method further comprises: determining that a gap between the vehicle and another vehicle in the different lane will be present for a time period;” ([0025] and [0053]-[0061] teach a determination of a gap for which a time period of lane change exists) “requesting the vehicle move into the different lane within the time period;” (Fig. 1, item 8; and [0054]-[0059] teaches outputting an indication of a lane change possibility and the determination of the vehicle should merge now) and “superimposing a visual representation of the vehicle, wherein the visual representation reflects an amount of remaining time in the time period.” (Figs. 4a-4c, 5a-5b, and 6a-6b; and at least [0063] teach representing via a visual superimposed image, the reflected amount of time remaining, elapsed, etc. for a vehicle to make a lane change)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of van Dok, Quint, Wagner, and Jang with Bone; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the display of information to a driver on a display device. Van Dok includes driving instructions such as turn, continue straight, etc. If a driving instruction requires a merge such as an on/off ramp or a decrease in lanes it can cause driver stress as often other vehicle may be driving nearby and without a clear indication of what they are doing. As Bone teaches in [0025] the lane change assist visualization system is the best for encouraging the driver to change lanes at an appropriate time. The system provides the maximum amount of information a driver needs and does not require them to monitor traffic in at least two lanes as they navigate the merge. The driver only needs to look ahead which eases the burden of driving and ensures safety.
Claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Dok, Quint, Wagner, and Jang, in view of van Os (US PG Pub 2013/0345959).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of van Dok, Quint, Wagner, and Jang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, in response to the selection of the navigation capability, the method comprises: presenting, on a third portion of the interface a predicted action for the vehicle to take to reach the destination, (Fig. 5, top portion turn arrow; Fig 7, item 350; [0014] and [0183] teach the system determining some kind of action for the vehicle to take to reach the destination and displaying it on some third portion of the display, this includes upcoming turns, route changes, and other relevant maneuvers)
determining a proximity of the vehicle to a location; (Fig. 5 item 115 and [0167] teach a determination of a distance between the vehicle and a location) and
The combination of van Dok, Quint, Wagner, and Jang does not teach altering a presentation of the predicted action corresponding to the proximity.
However, van Os teaches “altering a presentation of the predicted action corresponding to the proximity.” (Fig. 7 items 701-703; and [0141]-[0142] teach altering the display of the upcoming action by altering the distance remaining on the upcoming action and altering the display as a whole by changing the display type)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of van Dok, Quint, Wagner, and Jang with van Os; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the display of navigational instructions for a driver of a vehicle to follow. The altering of the display of an action to be performed would allow for the driver to have the correct amount of attention placed on the upcoming action. As taught in [0140] altering the display of information allows the user to keep the focus on the necessary pieces of information presented. By removing the extraneous and unnecessary information the driver would be able to perform the action required without being bogged down and distracted. This would create a safer driving action and help keep the driver safe.
Claim 14 is substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale.
Conclusion
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 NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights