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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-13, and 17-25 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein. Claims 9, 11, and 14-16 are cancelled. Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 12-13, and 19-20 are amended. Claims 24-25 are new.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the Non-Final Rejection dated 16 April 2026.
All objections from the prior office action are withdrawn.
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 from the prior office action are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the prior art of record 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.
Claim Objection
Claim 25 is objected to for the following informality: “determining the distance threshold range based on the a lane change analysis result” should be “determining the distance threshold range based on the
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 1-7, 10, 13, 19-20, and 24-25 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. 2015/0276421 (Beaurepaire and Beaurepaire, hereinafter, Beaurepaire).
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 (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 one or more 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 / wherein the distance threshold range is determined by: performing lane change analysis on the historical driving data, including: determining, for each of the plurality of times that the terminal device historically turned or changes lanes, a distance from an intersection where the terminal device started preparing to turn or change lanes according to the historical driving data, to obtain a plurality of distances; and determining the distance threshold range based on the plurality of distances.
However, Shimabara does at least suggest that the distance threshold range is not a constant (see at least [0079]: Shimabara discloses a specific value for distance is an example).
Beaurepaire, in the same field of navigation, and therefore analogous art, teaches determining user actions in response to navigation notifications (see at least [0053]: “The processing module 203 may also process user action data to determine compliance information to associate with a user in response to a navigation notification. By way of example, the processing module 203 may compare actual (collected) user action data against expected user action data pursuant to the navigation notification. The module 203 then determines, based on criteria maintained via a criteria database 114, whether the user action data is indicative of compliance or non-compliance on the part of the user with the navigation notification, the extent and/or level of compliance, or a combination thereof”), and determining if the navigation instruction should be modified based on the user actions (see at least [0055]: “The adaptation module 207 determines, based on the compliance information, whether a navigation notification should be adapted”) including determining when to show notifications (see at least [0056], [0060], [0064], [0071]-[0072], and [0075]: “This may include, for example, controlling the pace and frequency of presentment of notifications”; “adapting the timing, color, size, etc., of content for affecting the presentment of subsequent navigation notifications”; “By way of example, the one or more presentation parameters include, at least in part, (a) a timing for the presentation of the at least one navigation notification before the at least one maneuver, (b) a location for the presentation of the at least one navigation notification before the at least one maneuver, or (c) a combination thereof. As noted previously, this corresponds to persistent monitoring and learning of the adaptation platform 103 for accounting for changing environmental, topographical, geological, societal or natural conditions that impact the generation of navigation notifications over time”; “It is noted that the placement of the notification 515 in FIG. 5C, as depicted along the navigation path, also corresponds to a distance X from Ramp A. This distance X corresponds to a recommended range in which the user is to veer into the leftmost lane. In FIG. 5D, this range is depicted as a shaded area 519. This range is determined based on feedback (e.g., prior collected user action data) by the adaptation platform 103, which indicated that users who veered into the leftmost lane of Cut Street within this distance X had a higher chance of taking the exit corresponding to Ramp A than those who did not”). Therefore, Beaurepaire teaches a distance threshold range determined according to historical driving data / wherein the distance threshold range is determined by: performing lane change analysis on the historical driving data, including: determining, for each of the plurality of times that the terminal device historically turned or changes lanes, a distance from an intersection where the terminal device started preparing to turn or change lanes according to the historical driving data, to obtain a plurality of distances; and determining the distance threshold range based on the plurality of distances (see at least [0074]-[0075] / other citations above).
Combining the modification of navigation instructions of Beaurepaire based on prior collected user action data with the teachings of Shimabara 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 improving the driver’s navigation experience by adapting instructions based on how often they are followed (see at least Beaurepaire [0001]-[0002]).
Regarding Claim 2, the Shimabara and Beaurepaire 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 Beaurepaire 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 Beaurepaire 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 Beaurepaire 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 Beaurepaire 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 target 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 7, the Shimabara and Beaurepaire 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”. Beaurepaire further teaches relationships between distance, time, and speed for navigation (see at least [0023]-[0024]: “By way of example, in the case where a user is travelling along a freeway in route to a destination, a navigation notification for indicating an impending exit the user is to employ may be timed for presentment when the mobile device is within 500 feet of the exit, two minutes prior to the expected time of arrival to the exit (e.g., based on current speed and distance of travel), etc. Likewise, a second navigation notification may be timed to automatically occur when the mobile device is determined to be within 150 feet of, or 30 seconds away from, the suggested exit”), Combining the upper limit of intersections / time disclosed in Shimabara and the teachings of Beaurepaire that show one of ordinary skill in the art understands the relationship between distance, time, and speed / determining what to display based on speed, (the combination would show more intersections at a higher speed, since there is less time to cover the intersections), 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 target 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 there is enough reaction time provided regardless of the travel speed (see at least Beaurepaire [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding Claim 10, the Shimabara and Beaurepaire combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Shimabara further discloses wherein the determining the one or more subsequent intersections based on the distances 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 one or more 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 as one of the one or more 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 Beaurepaire combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Beaurepaire teaches user preference and customization when presenting navigation data, including changing the pace and frequency of notifications (see at least [0030], [0037], [0056], [0065], [0067], and [0076]). Combining customization of navigation commands of Beaurepaire with the upper limit of intersections disclosed in Shimabara (the combination is changing the upper limit of intersections based on customization which meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “current navigation phase”), and therefore, 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 improving the likelihood of success in navigation (see at least Beaurepaire [0036]).
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.”).
Regarding Claim 24, the Shimabara and Beaurepaire combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Beaurepaire further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1 / as part of the same combination as Claim 1) wherein determining the distance threshold range based on the plurality of distances comprises: using a weighted average of the plurality of distances as the distance threshold range (see at least [0041], [0055], and [0075]: “It is noted that the placement of the notification 515 in FIG. 5C, as depicted along the navigation path, also corresponds to a distance X from Ramp A. This distance X corresponds to a recommended range in which the user is to veer into the leftmost lane. In FIG. 5D, this range is depicted as a shaded area 519. This range is determined based on feedback (e.g., prior collected user action data) by the adaptation platform 103, which indicated that users who veered into the leftmost lane of Cut Street within this distance X had a higher chance of taking the exit corresponding to Ramp A than those who did not”; “Still further, the criteria may specify additional conditions to be accounted for as well as one or more analytic procedures to be performed in response to one or more user actions and/or instances of non-compliance. This may include, for example, processing the user action data against weather data, traffic data, environmental data and the like. Per this approach, the adaptation platform 103 is able to distinguish instances of intermittent non-compliance—i.e., those arising from weather or traffic related visibility conditions—versus those instances of non-compliance that are indicative of a consistent pattern”; “The adaptation module 207 determines, based on the compliance information, whether a navigation notification should be adapted. In addition, the module 207 may be configured to initiate execution of an adaptation for subsequent rendering and/or presentation at a UE 101. By way of example, the adaptation may be caused to occur based on criteria and/or one or more conditions being met, i.e., when a preponderance of users are shown to not comply with a given navigation instruction. Also, the module 207 may process the user action data against weather data, traffic data, environmental data and the like. Per this approach, the module 207 may further distinguish between persistent and intermittent instances of non-compliance”).
Regarding Claim 25, the Shimabara and Beaurepaire combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Beaurepaire further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1 / as part of the same combination as Claim 1) wherein determining the distance threshold range based on the plurality of distances comprises: inputting the historical driving data into a lane change analysis model to obtain a lane change analysis result, and determining the distance threshold range based on the a lane change analysis result (see at least [0041], [0055], and [0075]: “It is noted that the placement of the notification 515 in FIG. 5C, as depicted along the navigation path, also corresponds to a distance X from Ramp A. This distance X corresponds to a recommended range in which the user is to veer into the leftmost lane. In FIG. 5D, this range is depicted as a shaded area 519. This range is determined based on feedback (e.g., prior collected user action data) by the adaptation platform 103, which indicated that users who veered into the leftmost lane of Cut Street within this distance X had a higher chance of taking the exit corresponding to Ramp A than those who did not”; “Still further, the criteria may specify additional conditions to be accounted for as well as one or more analytic procedures to be performed in response to one or more user actions and/or instances of non-compliance. This may include, for example, processing the user action data against weather data, traffic data, environmental data and the like. Per this approach, the adaptation platform 103 is able to distinguish instances of intermittent non-compliance—i.e., those arising from weather or traffic related visibility conditions—versus those instances of non-compliance that are indicative of a consistent pattern”; “The adaptation module 207 determines, based on the compliance information, whether a navigation notification should be adapted. In addition, the module 207 may be configured to initiate execution of an adaptation for subsequent rendering and/or presentation at a UE 101. By way of example, the adaptation may be caused to occur based on criteria and/or one or more conditions being met, i.e., when a preponderance of users are shown to not comply with a given navigation instruction. Also, the module 207 may process the user action data against weather data, traffic data, environmental data and the like. Per this approach, the module 207 may further distinguish between persistent and intermittent instances of non-compliance”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimabara in view of Beaurepaire in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0264364 (hereinafter, Herchenroeder).
Regarding Claim 8, the Shimabara and Beaurepaire combination teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, 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 Beaurepaire 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 target 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 target 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 Beaurepaire in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0208450 (hereinafter, Katzer).
Regarding Claim 12, the Shimabara and Beaurepaire 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 Beaurepaire 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 target 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 target 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 Beaurepaire in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0124082 (hereinafter, Cho).
Regarding Claim 23, the Shimabara and Beaurepaire 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 Beaurepaire 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 Beaurepaire 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, Beaurepaire, and Cho combination teaches the limitations of Claim 23. Furthermore, Cho further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 23 / as part of same combination 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, Beaurepaire, 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, Beaurepaire, and Cho combination teaches the limitations of Claim 23. Furthermore, Cho teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 23 / as part of same combination 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, Beaurepaire, 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
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 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
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights