DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is made FINAL. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below; claims 1, 9, 12-14, 18, and 20 have been amended.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendments, Examiner adds the below interpretation of the term “shifting”; and maintains the previous § 102 and § 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that Pritchard “fails to disclose ‘the identity display region being a view focus region of a user and arranged in a fixed region of the navigational interface of the terminal located inside the vehicle.’” Remarks at p. 10 (emphasis in original). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pritchard teaches this limitation at least at Figure 5, which depicts representative model 504 in a fixed display region of a map 500 of a navigational interface 502, and ¶ [0053], which describes the device being installed into a dashboard of a vehicle. Furthermore, Applicant failed to provide any support for its position as to why this limitation was not taught by Pritchard. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Second, Applicant argues that Pritchard fails to disclose “updating a display configuration of the electronic map in the navigation interface by shifting the electronic map in a second direction opposite to the first direction based on the adjusted display position of the representative model in the identity display region.” Remarks at p. 10 (emphasis in original). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pritchard teaches this limitation at least at ¶ [0038], which describes updating the location of the vehicle in the map based on traveling along a planned route, which is a change in traveling state of the vehicle, ¶ [0050], which describes adjusting the scale of the map based on a change in the travel state of the vehicle, which can include traffic or an upcoming turn, ¶¶ [0069] – [0071], which describes the changes in travel state that cause the adjustments in the map, ¶¶ [0082] – [0085], which describes adjusting the representative model in a first direction and then adjusting the map in the opposite direction based on the adjustment to the representative model, and Figures 4 and 5 depicting the adjustment of the map and updating the display based on the position of the model being located on a lower edge of the display, and extending the map display in the opposite direction towards the upper display. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Any remaining arguments are directed to one of the above arguments and are unpersuasive for the same reasons.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner is interpreting the term “shifting” as used in claims 1, 12-14, 18, and 20 to have the same meaning as the term “adjusting.” Under BRI, the terms “adjusting” and “shifting” are synonymous. Furthermore, the term “shifting” does not appear in the specification at all and, therefore, would have no support for any other interpretation of the term.
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)(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 1-4, 6-9, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0019127 to Pritchard (previously of record).
Regarding claims 1, 18, and 20, Pritchard discloses:
A method of a display of a navigation interface, the method comprising:
displaying a representative model of a vehicle in an identity display region of the navigation interface, the identity display region being a view focus region of a user and arranged in a fixed region of the navigation interface of a terminal located inside the vehicle, and the representative model being displayed on an electronic map on the navigation interface (Figure 5 depicting representative model 504 in a fixed display region of a map 500 of a navigational interface 502; ¶ [0053] describing the device being installed into a dashboard of a vehicle);
adjusting, along a first direction and based on a change of a traveling state of the vehicle, a display position of the representative model in the identity display region; and updating a display configuration of the electronic map in the navigation interface by shifting the electronic map in a second direction opposite to the first direction based on the adjusted display position of the representative model in the identity display region that is arranged in the fixed region of the navigation interface (¶ [0038] describing update the location of the vehicle in the map based on traveling along a planned route, which is a change in traveling state of the vehicle; ¶ [0050] describing adjusting the scale of the map based on a change in the travel state of the vehicle, which can include traffic or an upcoming turn; see also ¶¶ [0069] – [0071] describing the changes in travel state that cause the adjustments in the map; ¶¶ [0082] – [0085], describing adjusting the representative model in a first direction and then adjusting the map in the opposite direction based on the adjustment to the representative model; Figures 4 and 5 depicting the adjustment of the map and updating the display based on the position of the model being located on a lower edge of the display, and extending the map display in the opposite direction towards the upper display.
Regarding claim 18 specifically, Pritchard further discloses processing circuitry (¶ [0054]).
Regarding claim 20 specifically, Pritchard further discloses non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions to perform the process (¶ [0054]).
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Pritchard discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 18. Pritchard further discloses:
wherein:
the adjusting the display position of the representative model further comprises:
determining an adjustment mode of the representative model based on a change type of the traveling state of the vehicle, the change type including one of a traveling direction change or a traveling lane change, and adjusting the display position of the representative model in the identity display region according to the adjustment mode (Figure 1 depicting adjusting the representative model based on a travel direction change; ¶¶ [0038] – [0040] describing adjust the mode based on the event horizon, which is a change in travel direction depicted in Figure 1); and the updating the display configuration of the electronic map further comprises: updating the display configuration of the electronic map based on the display position of the representative model being adjusted to an edge of the identity display region (¶¶ [0082], [0083] describing adjusting the representative model to a lower edge of the display region).
Regarding claim 3, Pritchard discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Pritchard further discloses:
wherein the determining the adjustment mode of the representative model further comprises:
determining that the adjustment mode is a vertical adjustment based on (i) the change type being the traveling direction change and (ii) a distance between the representative model and a direction change node being less than a first distance threshold, the direction change node indicating a position in the electronic map where a traveling direction of the representative model of the vehicle will be navigated to change (Figure 1 depicting the adjustment being vertical based on a change in traveling direction; ¶ [0040] – [0042] describing the event horizon, which is any navigational event such as a direction turn, being a threshold distance from the current position of the vehicle, and represented by a node 106 indicating the position that the vehicle will change its direction).
Regarding claim 4, Pritchard discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Pritchard further discloses:
wherein the adjusting the display position of the representative model further comprises:
adjusting the display position of the representative model toward an upper edge of the identity display region (Figure 4 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Figure 5 depicting adjusting the representative model from the lower edge towards an upper edge of the display region); and
increasing a map scale of the electronic map (¶¶ [0082], [0083] describing scaling up and down based on various scenarios).
Regarding claim 6, Pritchard discloses all the limitations of claim 4. Pritchard further discloses:
wherein:
the displaying the representative model of the vehicle in the identity display region comprises: displaying the representative model in the identity display region in a first navigation perspective; and the method further comprising: switching the first navigation perspective to a second navigation perspective, a field-of-view distance under the first navigation perspective being greater than a field-of-view distance under the second navigation perspective (Figures 4 and 5 depicting a switch from a first navigational perspective to a second navigational perspective, wherein the field of view depicted in the first perspective of Figure 4 is greater than the field of view depicted in the second perspective of Figure 5; see also ¶¶ [0082],[0083] describing same).
Regarding claim 7, Pritchard discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Pritchard further discloses:
adjusting the display position of the representative model in the identity display region based on the distance between the representative model and the direction change node being greater than a second distance threshold (¶ [0082] describing adjusting the display position of the model based on the distance being greater than a threshold distance); and
based on the representative model being adjusted to the edge of the identity display region, updating the display configuration of the electronic map based on the display position of the representative model in the identity display region and the traveling direction of the vehicle (Figure 4 depicting the updated position of the model based on the distance being greater than a threshold).
Regarding claim 8, Pritchard discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Pritchard further discloses:
wherein the adjusting the display position of the representative model in the identity display region further comprises:
based on the distance between the representative model and the direction change node being greater than the second distance threshold, adjusting the display position of the representative model toward a lower edge of the identity display region; and reducing the map scale of the electronic map (¶¶ [0082] – [0085] describing adjusting the display position of the model to a lower edge of the display region based on the distance to the event being greater than a threshold, and adjusting the scale accordingly; see also Figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 9, Pritchard discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Pritchard further discloses:
wherein the updating the display configuration of the electronic map further comprises:
based on the representative model being adjusted to the lower edge of the identity display region and the map scale being reduced to a second scale, updating the display configuration of the electronic map by adjusting the electronic map toward an upper edge of the navigation interface (¶¶ [0082] – [0085]; see also Figures 4 and 5 depicting the adjustment of the map and updating the display based on the position of the model being located on a lower edge of the display, and extending the map display in the direction towards the upper display).
Regarding claim 17, Pritchard discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Pritchard further discloses:
wherein:
the electronic map includes one of a three-dimensional map and a two-dimensional map, and the representative model includes one of a three-dimensional model of the vehicle and a two-dimensional model of the vehicle (Figure 5 depicting the 2D map 500 and the 2D representative model 504).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pritchard in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0026231 to Li et al. (previously of record).
Regarding claim 5, Pritchard discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Pritchard does not expressly disclose wherein the updating the display configuration of the electronic map further comprises: rotating the electronic map based on the display position of the representative model being adjusted to the upper edge of the identity display region and the map scale being increased to a first scale.
Li et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches rotating the map when the representative model is adjusted to the upper edge of the display and increasing the scale of the map (¶ [0087] describing rotating the map based on the model being at the upper portion and increasing the map scale).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pritchard’s invention to incorporate rotating the map based on the position of the model being at the upper edge of the displaying and increasing the scale, as taught by Li et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in avoiding the model from moving out of the navigation interface or being located too close to a lower portion of the screen, and improving the visual effect of the display (Li et al. at ¶ [0087]).
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pritchard in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0116574 to Kakimaru (previously of record).
Regarding claim 10, Pritchard discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Pritchard does not expressly disclose wherein: the determining the adjustment mode of the representative model further comprises: determining the adjustment mode as a horizontal adjustment based on the change of the traveling state of the vehicle and the change type of the traveling state being the traveling lane change; and the adjusting the display position of the representative model in the identity display region according to the adjustment mode further comprises: determining a lane change direction indicated by the traveling lane change, and adjusting the display position of the representative model in a horizontal direction in the identity display region based on the lane change direction.
Kakimaru, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining an adjustment mode as a lane change and adjusting the display position of the representative model in the identity display region in a horizontal direction of the lane change (¶ [0155] describing adjusting the representative model of the vehicle towards to the horizontal direction of the lane change and adjusting the map in the opposite direction of the lane change; see also Figures 10A-10E depicting the adjustment to the map and the representative model based on the direction of the lane change).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pritchard’s invention to incorporate adjusting the representative model in the horizontal direction of a detected lane change of the vehicle, as taught by Kakimaru, with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the occupant of the vehicle to recognize that the movement of the vehicle is a lane change and not side slipping of the vehicle from one lane to another (Kakimura at ¶ [0162]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Pritchard and Kakimura renders obvious all the limitations of claim 10. Kakimura further discloses:
wherein the adjusting the display position of the representative model in the horizontal direction further comprises: adjusting the display position of the representative model toward a right edge of the identity display region based on the lane change direction being a right lane change; and adjusting the display position of the representative model toward a left edge of the identity display region based on the lane change direction being a left lane change (¶ [0155] describing adjusting the representative model of the vehicle towards to the horizontal direction of the lane change and adjusting the map in the opposite direction of the lane change; see also Figures 10A-10E depicting the adjustment to the map and the representative model based on the direction of the lane change).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pritchard’s invention to incorporate adjusting the representative model in the horizontal direction of a detected lane change of the vehicle, as taught by Kakimaru, with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the occupant of the vehicle to recognize that the movement of the vehicle is a lane change and not side slipping of the vehicle from one lane to another (Kakimura at ¶ [0162]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Pritchard and Kakimura renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11. Kakimura further discloses:
wherein the updating the display configuration of the electronic map further comprises: adjusting the electronic map toward the left edge of the navigation interface based on the lane change direction being the right lane change and the representative model being adjusted toward the right edge of the identity display region; and adjusting the electronic map toward the right edge of the navigation interface based on the lane change direction being the left lane change and the representative model being adjusted toward the left edge of the identity display region (¶ [0155] describing adjusting the representative model of the vehicle towards to the horizontal direction of the lane change and adjusting the map in the opposite direction of the lane change; see also Figures 10A-10E depicting the adjustment to the map and the representative model based on the direction of the lane change).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pritchard’s invention to incorporate adjusting the representative model in the horizontal direction of a detected lane change of the vehicle, as taught by Kakimaru, with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the occupant of the vehicle to recognize that the movement of the vehicle is a lane change and not side slipping of the vehicle from one lane to another (Kakimura at ¶ [0162]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Pritchard and Kakimura renders obvious all the limitations of claim 10. Pritchard further discloses:
based on the representative model being not positioned at the edge of the identity display region and the vehicle not performing a lane change, displaying the representative model in a fixed position of the identity display region (Figure 5 depicting the vehicle fixed in the center of the map when not changing lanes); and
updating the display configuration of the electronic map by shifting the electronic map based on the display position of the representative model and the traveling direction of the vehicle (Figure 4 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Figure 5 depicting adjusting the map in the opposite direction of travel based on the position of the vehicle being fixed in the center of the map; see also ¶¶ [0082], [0083] describing adjusting the map based on the position of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Pritchard and Kakimura renders obvious all the limitations of claim 10. Pritchard further discloses:
displaying the representative model in a fixed position of the identity display region based on the traveling state of the vehicle being not changed (Figure 5 depicting the vehicle fixed in the center of the map when not changing lanes); and
updating the display configuration of the electronic map by shifting the electronic map based on the display position of the representative model and a traveling direction of the vehicle (Figure 4 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Figure 5 depicting adjusting the map in the opposite direction of travel based on the position of the vehicle being fixed in the center of the map; see also ¶¶ [0082], [0083] describing adjusting the map based on the position of the vehicle).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pritchard in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0007074 to Sakashita (previously of record).
Regarding claim 15, Pritchard discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Pritchard does not expressly disclose wherein the navigation interface includes a first display region and a second display region, the first display region and the second display region being configured to jointly display the electronic map, the first display region including a guide panel that is superimposed and displayed above the electronic map in the first display region, and configured to display navigation guide information; and the method further comprising: determining the identity display region in the second display region.
Sakashita, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a first display above a second display, wherein the first display includes a guide panel configured to display navigation information, and the second display is determining the identity display region (Figure 2 depicting a first display region 56 containing navigational information and superimposed above a second display region 26 being the identity display region).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pritchard’s invention to incorporate a first display region superimposed on the second display region and including navigational information, as taught by Sakashita, with a reasonable expectation of success in presenting directional navigation information to the user (Sakashita at ¶ [0015]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pritchard and Sakashita, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0168102 to Kim et al (previously of record).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Pritchard and Sakashita renders obvious all the limitations of claim 15.
Neither Pritchard nor Sakashita expressly discloses wherein the determining the identity display region in the second display region comprises: partitioning the second display region into a plurality of grid regions; and determining a grid region of the plurality of grid regions in the second display region as the identity display region, a midpoint of the grid region being a golden section point of the second display region.
Kim et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches partitioning a display into a plurality of grid regions and determining a grid region in the plurality of grid regions as having a midpoint being a golden section (Figure 12A depicting the plurality of grid regions with the center of the region 1255 being the midpoint that is the golden section point; NOTE: There is no definition for “golden” section. Therefore, Examiner is interpreting the limitation as being a midpoint of a grid region).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Pritchard’s invention to incorporate dividing the second display region into a plurality of grid regions that include a midpoint within the regions, as taught by Kim et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the navigational system to download and store grid regions where the vehicle is located and those direction surrounding the grid in which the vehicle is located, but not download the entire plurality of grids taking up too much memory in the device (Kim et al. at ¶¶ [0440] – [0444]).
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 JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-4pm ET.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/JDH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645