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 (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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 January 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-13, and 17-23 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein. Claims 9, 11, and 14-16 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the final rejection dated 29 October 2025. All objections from the prior office action are withdrawn. All rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the prior office action are withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments, dated 28 January 2026, with respect to the prior art rejections from the prior office action 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 (i.e., a new reference teaches “determined according to historical driving data” – see below).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 26 February 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to for the following informalities:
Claims 1, 19, and 20: “a distance from each of the target subsequent intersections” should be “a distance from each of the one or more target subsequent intersections”.
Claim 5: “an intersectional positional relationship” should be “[[an]] the intersection positional relationship” (see also rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d)).
Claim 10: “a first distance requirement as one of the target subsequent intersections” should be “a first distance requirement as one of the one or more target subsequent intersections”.
Claim 10: “including at least one of the two intersections to the target subsequent intersections” should be “including at least one of the two intersections [[to]] as one of the one or more target subsequent intersections”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6-8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Claims 6-8 and 12-13 each recite the limitation "providing the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and the lane prompt information corresponding to the one or more subsequent intersections of the route intersection comprises"; however Claim 1 now recites (emphasis added) “providing lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and lane prompt information corresponding to the one or more target subsequent intersections of the route intersection” (the limitation “providing lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and lane prompt information corresponding to one or more subsequent intersections of the route intersection” is no longer included in Claim 1). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would not be able to determine the meets and bounds of the claims, because one of ordinary skill would not know which lane prompts must be provided. Multiple interpretations are possible. Furthermore, certain possible interpretations may not be supported by the originally filed disclosure. For the purposes of applying prior art for compact prosecution, the examiner will assume multiple interpretations are possible, including interpretations that do not require the limitation “providing lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and lane prompt information corresponding to the one or more subsequent intersections of the route intersection”. Appropriate corrections are required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. As amended, Claim 1 recites “determining one or more subsequent intersections based on an intersection positional relationship”. Claim 5 recites “wherein the one or more subsequent intersections include at least one of: a designated intersection after the route intersection, or one or more intersections determined based on at least one of: driving parameters, an intersection positional relationship, parameters of the display screen, a navigation phase, or traffic flow corresponding to the navigation route”. As written, “wherein … one or more intersections determined based on…an intersection positional relationship…”, would read on Claim 5, which does not further limit Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 10, 13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2001/0027377 (hereinafter, Shimabara) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0005922 (Bank et al., hereinafter, Bank).
Regarding Claim 1, Shimabara discloses A lane indication method (see at least [0067], [0080], and FIG. 5: “FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating the operation procedure of the navigation system in the display of the intersection guidance information, which is executed in parallel with the display operation of a guidance route during route guidance”; “the recommended travel lane is displayed with emphasis on the display screen of the display unit 7 as the intersection guidance information (step 107)”), executed by a terminal device comprising a hardware processor (see at least [0028], [0056], and FIG. 1: navigation controller 1), and the method comprising:
detecting, by the terminal device, a navigation start operation inputted by a user (see at least [0028], [0030], and [0068]: “a remote control unit 4 through which a user inputs various types of instructions”; “When the route guidance mode key of the remote control unit 4 is pressed, a specific route guidance operation is started (step 100)”),
in response to the navigation start operation (see at least [0068] and FIG. 5: “When the route guidance mode key of the remote control unit 4 is pressed, a specific route guidance operation is started (step 100)”), displaying, on a display screen coupled to the hardware processor, a navigation interface (see at least [0059] and [0068]: “The intersection guidance unit 18, which provides guidance concerning the intersection that the vehicle is going to pass, produces guidance information for a specific intersection including recommended travel lane information and displays the guidance information on the display screen of the display unit 7.”; “For example, the guidance route drawing unit 38 reads out the nodes on the guidance route stored in the guidance route memory 34, selects the data stored in the area of the map image displayed at that time out of the links connecting these nodes, and draws a thick emphasized guidance route to superimpose it on the map image corresponding to the links.”), wherein the navigation start operation indicates performing navigation based on a navigation start position and a navigation end position, the navigation interface is configured to display a navigation route for a vehicle associated with the terminal device, and the navigation route comprises at least one intersection, the at least one intersection includes at least one of: intersections where traffics lights are located, turning intersections, fork intersections, or intersections where road marking lines are located; (see at least [0030], [0032], and FIG. 9: “The remote control unit 4 is equipped with several types of keys that a user operates, such as a search key to give a route search instruction, a route guidance mode key to set a route guidance mode, a destination input key, a vertical/horizontal cursor key, a map reduction/expansion key, and a setting key to identify an item at the cursor position on the display. The remote control unit transmits an infrared signal according to the state of a key operation toward the navigation controller 1.”; “The display unit 7 displays, on the basis of the drawing data outputted from the navigation controller 1, a map image for the area surrounding the vehicle together with a vehicle position mark, a starting point mark, a destination mark, etc., and displays a guidance route, intersection guidance information and the like.”; fork intersections / turning intersections are shown in FIG. 9); and
in response to the terminal device being within a prompt range of a route intersection on the navigation route (see at least [0060] and [0079]: “specifies an intersection that the vehicle is about to pass (hereunder, referred to as "the first intersection")”; “judge whether the first intersection approaches within the specific distance or not”),
determining one or more subsequent intersections based on an intersection positional relationship (see at least [0092]: “For example, the intersection that the vehicle passes next after passing the first intersection may be specified as the second intersection”);
determining, from the one or more subsequent intersections, one or more target subsequent intersections based on distances between the route intersection and the one or more subsequent intersections, a distance from each of the target subsequent intersections to the route intersection meeting a distance requirement, the distance requirement including a distance threshold range…(see at least [0093]: “it is possible to establish an upper limit for the number of intersections (for example, 10 intersections) that are taken into consideration for the calculation, or to establish an upper limit of time on the basis of an estimated time for the travel of the set guidance route (for example, 30 minutes), or to establish an upper limit of distance (for example, 10 km); and it is only needed to set a recommended travel lane in consideration of the intersections that lie within the range of the upper limit”); and
providing lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and lane prompt information corresponding to the one or more target subsequent intersections of the route intersection (see at least FIG. 10).
Shimabara is silent with how to determine an upper limit of distance. Therefore, Shimabara does not explicitly disclose a distance threshold range determined according to historical driving data.
Bank, in the same field of navigation, and therefore analogous art, teaches a super detail mode that provides additional data; the super detail mode may be activated according to driving history (see at least [0051]-[0052]). Combining the super detail mode of mode of Bank (i.e., varying the amount of navigation detail provided based on driving history) with the distance threshold disclosed in Shimabara (the combination is a higher distance threshold in an area that would be challenging to navigate so there are more directions provided), which reads on a distance threshold range determined according to historical driving data would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of preventing a driver from becoming lost or experience other issues while navigating in a relatively challenging area (see at least Bank [0013]).
Regarding Claim 2, the Shimabara and Bank combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Shimabara further discloses further comprising: determining a first presentation mode of the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection, the first presentation mode comprising at least one of an information category or a presentation form of the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection (see at least FIG. 10: intersection guidance information 100);
determining a second presentation mode of the lane prompt information corresponding to the one or more subsequent intersections, the second presentation mode comprising at least one of an information category or a presentation form of the lane prompt information corresponding to the one or more subsequent intersections (see at least FIG. 10: intersection guidance information 110);
wherein the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection is displayed in the first presentation mode and the lane prompt information corresponding to the one or more subsequent intersections is displayed in the second presentation mode (see at least FIG. 10).
Regarding Claim 3, the Shimabara and Bank combination teaches the limitations of Claim 2. Furthermore, Shimabara further discloses wherein the lane prompt information category comprises at least one of: lane pointing information, recommended lane information, a distance between an intersection and a designated location, a lane traffic condition, or a speed limit requirement; wherein the lane pointing information of an intersection refers to lane distribution information corresponding to the intersection, and the recommended lane information of an intersection indicates a recommended lane corresponding to the intersection in the navigation route (see at least FIG. 10: includes at least recommended lane information / lane pointing information).
Regarding Claim 4, the Shimabara and Bank combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Shimabara further discloses further comprising: determining one of the one or more subsequent intersections whose lane prompt information is to be displayed based on an intersection display strategy; wherein the intersection display strategy is related to at least one of intersection distribution in the navigation route, a dynamic parameter of a driving process, and a static parameter of the driving process, the dynamic parameter being a parameter updated in real time according to the driving process and the static parameter being a parameter that remains unchanged during the driving process (see at least [0070] and [0093]: “the guidance information setting unit 20 specifies the second intersection, namely, the intersection that the vehicle passes after passing the first intersection, where the vehicle makes a right-turn or a left-turn (step 103)”; “it is possible to establish an upper limit for the number of intersections (for example, 10 intersections) that are taken into consideration for the calculation, or to establish an upper limit of time on the basis of an estimated time for the travel of the set guidance route (for example, 30 minutes), or to establish an upper limit of distance (for example, 10 km); and it is only needed to set a recommended travel lane in consideration of the intersections that lie within the range of the upper limit”).
Regarding Claim 5, the Shimabara and Bank combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Shimabara further discloses wherein the one or more subsequent intersections include at least one of: a designated intersection after the route intersection, or one or more intersections determined based on at least one of: driving parameters, an intersection positional relationship, parameters of the display screen, a navigation phase, or traffic flow corresponding to the navigation route (see at least [0070]: “the guidance information setting unit 20 specifies the second intersection, namely, the intersection that the vehicle passes after passing the first intersection, where the vehicle makes a right-turn or a left-turn (step 103)”).
Regarding Claim 6, the Shimabara and Bank combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Shimabara further discloses wherein the one or more subsequent intersections include one or more designated intersections after the route intersection; and providing the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and the lane prompt information corresponding to the one or more subsequent intersections of the route intersection comprises: providing the lane prompt information corresponding to the route current intersection and the lane prompt information corresponding to the one or more designated intersection, wherein the one or more designated intersection is an intersection following the route intersection, at least two intersections after the route intersection, or an intersection meeting specified conditions after the route intersection (see at least FIG. 10).
Regarding Claim 10, the Shimabara and Bank combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Shimabara further discloses wherein the determining the one or more subsequent intersections based on the distance between the route intersection and the one or more subsequent intersection comprises: determining a subsequent intersection whose distance from the route intersection meets a first distance requirement as one of the target subsequent intersections; or determining, among the route intersection and the one or more subsequent intersections, two intersections whose distance meets a second distance requirement, and including at least one of the two intersections to the target subsequent intersections (see at least [0093] and FIG. 10: “it is possible to establish an upper limit for the number of intersections (for example, 10 intersections) that are taken into consideration for the calculation, or to establish an upper limit of time on the basis of an estimated time for the travel of the set guidance route (for example, 30 minutes), or to establish an upper limit of distance (for example, 10 km); and it is only needed to set a recommended travel lane in consideration of the intersections that lie within the range of the upper limit”).
Regarding Claim 13, the Shimabara and Bank combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Bank teaches different navigation phases, and providing more detailed instructions / more instructions during the “super detail mode” navigation phase (see at least [0047]). Shimabara discloses “it is possible to establish an upper limit for the number of intersections (for example, 10 intersections)” (see at least [0093]). Combining the super detail mode of mode of Bank (i.e., varying the amount of navigation detail provided based on various factors) with the upper limit of intersections disclosed in Shimabara (the combination is making a higher intersection threshold in an area that would be challenging to navigate so there are more directions provided), which reads on wherein the one or more subsequent intersections are determined based on a current navigation phase; providing the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and the lane prompt information corresponding to the one or more subsequent intersections of the route intersection comprises: based on the current navigation phase and preconfigured correspondence relationships between a plurality of navigation phases divided according to preset division rules and a plurality of fifth numbers, determining a fifth number that corresponds to the current navigation phase, and providing the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and the lane prompt information corresponding to the fifth number of subsequent intersection after the route intersection would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of ensuring enough directions are provided in an area likely to cause issues for the driver (see at least Bank [0013]).
Regarding Claim 19, this claim is similar in scope to Claim 1 (for all limitations not specifically addressed below, see analysis in rejection for Claim 1 as this claim is rejected for the same reasons). Additionally, Shimabara discloses A lane indication apparatus (see at least [0056] and FIG. 1: “FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating the general construction of a vehicle navigation system”), comprising:
at least one processor (see at least [0056]: “a vehicle position calculating unit 30 that calculates the vehicle position and map matching processing, route search processing, and route guidance processing, a route search processing unit 32”) and at least one memory (see at least [0028]-[0029, [0056], and FIG. 1: a guidance route memory 34, a DVD, a CD), wherein a computer program is stored in the at least one memory, the computer program being loaded and executed by the at least one processor (see at least [0056] and [0067]: “FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating the operation procedure of the navigation system in the display of the intersection guidance information, which is executed in parallel with the display operation of a guidance route during route guidance.”).
Regarding Claim 20, this claim is similar in scope to Claim 1 (for all limitations not specifically addressed below, see analysis in rejection for Claim 1 as this claim is rejected for the same reasons). Additionally, Shimabara discloses A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, wherein a computer program is stored in the storage medium, the computer program being loaded and executed by at least one processor of a terminal device (see at least [0028], [0056], FIG. 1, and FIG. 5: “FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating the operation procedure of the navigation system in the display of the intersection guidance information, which is executed in parallel with the display operation of a guidance route during route guidance.”; “The navigation system illustrated in FIG. 1 includes a navigation controller 1 that administers overall control, a DVD 2 in which various map data necessary for displaying maps and searching routes and the like are recorded, a disk read-out drive 3 that reads out the map data recorded in the DVD 2, a remote control unit 4 through which a user inputs various types of instructions, a GPS receiver 5 and a self-contained navigation sensor 6 that detect the vehicle position and the vehicle azimuth, and a display unit 7 that displays map images, guidance routes and the like.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimabara in view of Bank in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0128696 (hereinafter, Quint).
Regarding Claim 7, the Shimabara and Bank combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Shimabara discloses “it is possible to establish an upper limit for the number of intersections (for example, 10 intersections)” (see at least [0093]). Shimabara also discloses “establish an upper limit of time on the basis of an estimated time for the travel of the set guidance route (for example, 30 minutes)… set a recommended travel lane in consideration of the intersections that lie within the range of the upper limit”. The Shimabara and Bank combination does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more subsequent intersections are determined based on a driving speed; providing the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and the lane prompt information corresponding to the one or more subsequent intersections of the route intersection comprises: based on the driving speed, providing the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and the lane prompt information corresponding to a first number of subsequent intersections after the route intersection, wherein the first number has a positive correlation relationship with the driving speed.
Quint, in the same field of navigation, and therefore analogous art, teaches relationships between distance, time, and speed for navigation (see at least [0037]-[0038]: “15 seconds to safely change lanes without acting too aggressively”; “at 60 miles per hour, a lane shift has a tolerance of 0.25 miles (the distance a vehicle will travel in 15 seconds), whereas at 30 miles per hour, a lane shift covers 0.125 miles”; “The 15 second buffer is merely provided for illustrative purposes, to show that the distance can change with speed and that the distances can stack up when a driver has to cross multiple lanes”). Combining the adjusting distance and time thresholds based on speed of Quint (i.e., varying the navigation display provided based on distance and speed) with the upper limit of intersections disclosed in Shimabara (the combination is making a higher intersection threshold in an area that has fast travel), which reads on wherein the one or more subsequent intersections are determined based on a driving speed; providing the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and the lane prompt information corresponding to the one or more subsequent intersections of the route intersection comprises: based on the driving speed, providing the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and the lane prompt information corresponding to a first number of subsequent intersections after the route intersection, wherein the first number has a positive correlation relationship with the driving speed would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of ensuring maneuvers can be made safely at higher speeds, where there is more distance required to safety change lanes (see at least Quint [0037]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimabara in view of Bank in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0264364 (hereinafter, Herchenroeder).
Regarding Claim 8, the Shimabara and Bank combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Shimabara discloses “it is possible to establish an upper limit for the number of intersections (for example, 10 intersections)” (see at least [0093]). Shimabara also discloses “establish an upper limit of time on the basis of an estimated time for the travel of the set guidance route (for example, 30 minutes)… set a recommended travel lane in consideration of the intersections that lie within the range of the upper limit” (see at least [0093]). The Shimabara and Bank combination does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more subsequent intersections are determined based on a current parameter of a driving gear; providing the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and the lane prompt information corresponding to the one or more subsequent intersections of the route intersection comprises: based on the current parameter of the driving gear and preconfigured correspondence relationships between a plurality of parameters of the driving gear and a plurality of second numbers, determining a second number that corresponds to the current parameter of the driving gear, and providing the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and the lane prompt information corresponding to the second number of subsequent intersection after the route intersection.
Herchenroeder, in the same field of navigation, and therefore analogous art, teaches relationships between journey time and operating mode (see at least [0014]-[0016]: “On selecting a sport mode 14, the processing unit 7 is acted upon by corresponding information and bases the calculation of the journey time 6 on an increased average speed of the vehicle, compared with a standard value. This increase can be determined empirically in advance or else in the simplest case can constitute a simple, e.g. percentage addition. Therefore, in the sport mode 14, the display unit 4 indicates a comparatively reduced journey time 6 and correspondingly an earlier arrival time”; “On selecting an eco mode 15, the processing unit 7 is acted upon by corresponding information and bases the calculation of the journey time 6 on a reduced average speed of the vehicle compared with the sport mode and/or with a standard value. This adaptation here, therefore, the reduction of the speed forming the basis can also be determined empirically in advance. Accordingly, the display unit 4 in the eco mode 15 indicates a comparatively greater journey time 6 and correspondingly a later arrival time”). Combining the adjusting journey time thresholds based on mode of Herchenroeder with the intersection thresholds disclosed in Shimabara (the combination is mode results in an adjustment to journey time, which results in an adjustment to the displayed intersections), which reads on wherein the one or more subsequent intersections are determined based on a current parameter of a driving gear; providing the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and the lane prompt information corresponding to the one or more subsequent intersections of the route intersection comprises: based on the current parameter of the driving gear and preconfigured correspondence relationships between a plurality of parameters of the driving gear and a plurality of second numbers, determining a second number that corresponds to the current parameter of the driving gear, and providing the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and the lane prompt information corresponding to the second number of subsequent intersection after the route intersection would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of providing navigation in a way that is customized based on driving style (see at least Herchenroeder [0004]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimabara in view of Bank in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0208450 (hereinafter, Katzer).
Regarding Claim 12, the Shimabara and Bank combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Shimabara discloses “it is possible to establish an upper limit for the number of intersections (for example, 10 intersections)” (see at least [0093]). The Shimabara and Bank combination does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more subsequent intersections are determined based on a size of the display screen; providing the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and the lane prompt information corresponding to the one or more subsequent intersection of the route intersection comprises: based on the size of the display screen, determining a fourth number that is in positive correlation relationship with the size of the display screen, and providing the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and the lane prompt information corresponding to the fourth number of subsequent intersection after the route intersection.
Katzer, in the same field of navigation, and therefore analogous art, teaches relationships between screen size and the amount of detail that can be provided (see at least, [0070]-[0071], FIG. 3 and FIG. 4: “The screen display according to FIG. 3 further includes an additional schematic view of the two upcoming, successive turn maneuvers 7”; “The complex intersection shown in FIG. 4 largely corresponds to the perspective view depicted in FIG. 4. The difference between the perspective view according to FIG. 4 and the perspective view according to FIG. 3 lies solely in the fact that the perspective view according to FIG. 4 was rendered for a smaller navigation screen. For this reason, several graphic elements are shown on a smaller scale or omitted entirely in the perspective view of FIG. 4, so as to still provide the user with an overview of the route 1 to be followed through the complex intersection”). Combining the upper limit of intersections disclosed in Shimabara and rendering a number of intersections appropriate for a screen of Katzer, which reads on wherein the one or more subsequent intersections are determined based on a size of the display screen; providing the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and the lane prompt information corresponding to the one or more subsequent intersection of the route intersection comprises: based on the size of the display screen, determining a fourth number that is in positive correlation relationship with the size of the display screen, and providing the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and the lane prompt information corresponding to the fourth number of subsequent intersection after the route intersection would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of providing an amount of detail reasonable for the screen size (see at least Katzer [0070]-[0071]).
Claims 17-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimabara in view of Bank in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0124082 (hereinafter, Cho).
Regarding Claim 23, the Shimabara and Bank combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Shimabara further discloses wherein providing the lane prompt information corresponding to the route intersection and the lane prompt information corresponding to the one or more target subsequent intersections of the route intersection comprises: displaying a first prompt box corresponding to the route intersection, the first prompt box being configured to display the lane prompt information of the route intersection, the first prompt box comprising a first lane marking corresponding to the route intersection, and the first lane marking indicating lane distribution of the route intersection, wherein the route intersection is one of the at least one intersection on the navigating route that is currently upcoming to the terminal device moving with the vehicle (see at least [0081], FIG. 9, and FIG. 10: “In the intersection guidance information 100 corresponding to the node N1, only the center lane of the three is emphatically displayed in correspondence with the lane c as the recommended travel lane (shown by hatching in FIG. 9)”); and in response to the one or more subsequent intersections comprising at least two intersections following the route intersection, sequentially arranging and displaying at least two second prompt boxes respectively corresponding to the at least two intersections at locations around the first prompt box, each of the at least two second prompt boxes being configured to display the lane prompt information of the corresponding subsequent intersection, each of the at least two second prompt boxes comprising a second lane marking corresponding to one of the at least two intersections, and the second lane marking indicating lane distribution of the corresponding intersection (see at least [0081], [0086]-[0087], FIG. 9, and FIG. 10: “in the intersection guidance information 110 corresponding to the node N2, only the center lane of the three is emphatically displayed in correspondence with the lane f as the recommended travel lane”; FIG. 9 “may be made to provide guidance information for more than two intersections”; in FIG. 10, “four intersection guidance information 100, 110, 120, 130 are displayed”).
The Shimabara and Bank combination does not explicitly teach wherein a display size of each of the at least two second prompt boxes is smaller than a display size of the first prompt box.
Cho, in the same field of navigation, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein a display size of each of the at least two second prompt boxes is smaller than a display size of the first prompt box (see at least [0015], [0041], [0048], and FIG. 6: “the information related the intersections, which are a part of the indication data, is displayed in a way that it protrudes in the direction of where the driver is seated, in reverse proportion to the distance to the intersection from the current location”; “the size of the displayed intersection is larger for an intersection closer to the current location, among many intersections the vehicle will encounter on the way to the destination”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine Shimabara and Bank combination with Cho (i.e., displaying subsequent intersections smaller than the route intersection) “to maximize the legibility of the driver” (see at least Cho [0003]).
Regarding Claim 17, the Shimabara, Bank, and Cho combination teaches the limitations of Claim 23. Furthermore, Cho further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 23) wherein a first quantity of the at least two second prompt boxes corresponding to first i subsequent intersections after the current intersection are displayed in a first size, a second quantity of the at least two second prompt boxes corresponding to the (i+1)th to nth subsequent intersection are displayed in a second size, wherein the first size is smaller than the display size of the first prompt box, the second size is smaller than the first size, n≥2, i is a positive integer, and i≤n (see at least FIG. 6: let i=1 and n=2).
Regarding Claim 18, the Shimabara, Bank, and Cho combination teaches the limitations of Claim 23. Furthermore, Shimabara further discloses further comprising at least one of: in the first prompt box, highlighting a first target lane marking, the first target lane marking being a marking of a recommended lane corresponding to the navigation route in the first lane marking; or in one of the at least two second prompt boxes, highlighting a second target lane marking, the second target lane marking being a marking of a recommended lane corresponding to the navigation route in the second lane marking (see at least FIG. 10: the slashed lines show highlighting of the recommended lane).
Regarding Claim 21, the Shimabara, Bank, and Cho combination teaches the limitations of Claim 23. Furthermore, Cho teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 23) wherein the display sizes of the at least two second prompt boxes respectively corresponding to the at least two intersections decrease with an arrangement order of the at least two intersections (see at least FIG. 6: each intersection 230 has a gradually smaller prompt box).
Regarding Claim 22, the Shimabara, Bank, and Cho combination teaches the limitations of Claim 23. Furthermore, Shimabara teaches boxes with a same display size (see at least FIG. 10). Furthermore, wherein the at least two second prompt boxes respectively corresponding to the at least two intersections have a same display size would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, because it was known as a prior art solution (see at least Cho FIG. 5), the motivation would be to prevent any intersection displayed from being too small to read, which would happen if each intersection keeps getting smaller than the last on certain displays.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM 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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights