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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/31/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 5-11, 14-20 remain pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application CN202210917366.X filed on 08/01/2022.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14-15, 18, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Komikawa (US20220306145) in view of Hackenberg (US20150094899) and Payne (US10017172) and Schmidt (US20200156630).
Regarding claim 1, Komikawa teaches a navigation interface prompt method, performed by a terminal, the method comprising ([0040]-[0046] disclosing a navigation interface prompt performed by a terminal):
displaying a dynamic location identifier corresponding to a vehicle in an electronic map in a navigation interface, the dynamic location identifier being configured for indicating a real-time location of the vehicle on a navigation route, and the vehicle being in a first driving mode ([0040]-[0046] disclosing the dynamic location the vehicle displayed on the navigation route when the vehicle is in an automatic driving mode); and
displaying, at a pre-prompt stage before the vehicle exits the first driving mode, a switch location identifier on the navigation route in the navigation interface, the switch location identifier indicating a predicted location at which the vehicle exits the first driving mode and switches to a second driving mode ([0040]-[0046] disclosing displaying a location on the map where the switch is predicted to be switched to a second driving mode being manual).
displaying, navigation panel in the navigation interface ([0040]-[0060], See figure 2A showing the navigation map panel and path to the switch locations and the switch points);
Komikawa does not teach displaying, in response to the dynamic location identifier arriving at a first information prompt location, a navigation map panel in the navigation interface, the first information prompt location being a location that is from the switch location identifier by a first threshold on the navigation route. Transmitting, in response to the dynamic location identifier arriving at a second prompt location, first prompt information in addition to displaying the navigation map panel in the navigation interface, the second information prompt location being from the switch location identifier by a second threshold on the navigation route, and the second threshold being smaller than the first threshold.
Payne teaches route in response to the dynamic location identifier arriving at a first information prompt location, the first information prompt location being a location that is from the switch location identifier by a first threshold on the navigation route (summary first paragraph, col. 3 lines 25-67 disclosing notifying a driver at a predetermined distance threshold from the location of the switch to a mode).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Payne with the notification of Komikawa in order to alert the driver ahead of time of the upcoming change in mode, yielding predictable results and to not clutter the display of information that is not necessary until the distance threshold is reached and the driver is notified.
Komikawa as modified by Payne does not teach Transmitting, in response to the dynamic location identifier arriving at a second prompt location, first prompt information in addition to displaying the navigation map panel in the navigation interface, the second information prompt location being from the switch location identifier by a second threshold on the navigation route, and the second threshold being smaller than the first threshold.
Hackenberg teaches Transmitting, in response to the dynamic location identifier arriving at a second prompt location, first prompt information ([0008]-[0012] disclosing when a distance is less than a third threshold, which is less than a second threshold less which is less than a than a first threshold for changing the warning output indicator. [0008]-[0012] disclosing the first indicator may be a text on a display or on a navigation map and the second one may be different such as an acoustic warning or information for the remaining time to arrive at switch location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Hackenberg to the warning of Komikawa as modified by Payne yielding predictable results in order to indicate a degree of urgency for taking over to the driver when the autopilot is about to end thus improving driving safety.
While Komikawa as modified by Payne and Hackenberg does not disclose in addition to displaying the navigation map panel in the navigation interface.
Schmidt teaches in addition to displaying a navigation panel ([0075]-[0078] disclosing a second type of warning in an acoustic form without disabling a first warning such as a text navigation for rerouting, i.e., in addition to a navigation panel).
Schmidt adds more intrusive and urgent warnings when a threshold is decreased, thus it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or substitute the dual warning as taught by Schmidt to the second urgent warning as taught by Hackenberg yielding predictable results in order to increase driver awareness and improve safety.
Regarding claim 2, Komikawa as modified by Payne and Hackenberg and Schmidt teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein displaying, at the pre-prompt stage before the vehicle exits the first driving mode, the switch location identifier on the navigation route in the navigation interface comprises: and displaying a path guide identifier and a navigation map panel in the navigation interface ([0040]-[0046] disclosing superimposing the position on the map and displaying a path that shows the vehicle navigating towards the switch point and estimated time and distance from switch point. See figure 2A showing the navigation map panel and path to the switch locations and the switch points),
the path guide identifier being a guide identifier indicating that the dynamic location identifier, corresponding to the vehicle, moves to the switch location identifier ([0040]-[0046] disclosing superimposing the position on the map and displaying a path that shows the vehicle navigating towards the switch point and estimated time and distance from switch point),
Regarding claim 5, Komikawa as modified by Payne and Hackenberg and Schmidt further teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the first prompt information comprises at least one of an alert sound, displaying of a flashing alert in the navigation interface, displaying of a full-screen alert in the navigation interface, steering wheel vibration, or seatbelt tightening.
Specifically, Payne teaches the first prompt information comprises at least one of an alert sound, displaying of a flashing alert in the navigation interface, displaying of a full-screen alert in the navigation interface, steering wheel vibration, or seatbelt tightening (at least summary first paragraph disclosing the pulsing ,i.e., flashing, of an indicator as a first prompt information).
It would have been obvious to combine or substitute the notification method of flashing an indicator of Payne with the teaching of Komikawa to visually indicate to the driver a location to switch and the flashing allows to less clutter the screen by flashing the same indicators on the screen, in anyways flashing an indicator is an obvious design choice as shown by Payne.
Regarding claim 6, Komikawa as modified by Payne and Hackenberg and Schmidt method according to claim 2, wherein the navigation map panel comprises information of at least one of a distance progress bar between the dynamic location identifier and the switch location identifier, numeric distance prompt information, or a navigation route thumbnail (Komikawa fig. 2A disclosing a distance progress bar and paragraphs [0040]-[0051] disclosing at least a distance prompt information).
Regarding claim 9, Komikawa as modified by Payne and Hackenberg and Schmidt teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first driving mode is an autonomous driving mode or an assisted driving mode, and the second driving mode is a manual driving mode; the first driving mode is a fuel-powered driving mode or a fuel-gas-powered driving mode, and the second driving mode is an electric driving mode; the first driving mode is a fuel-powered driving mode, and the second driving mode is a fuel-gas-powered driving mode; or the first driving mode is a sport mode, and the second driving mode is a snow mode (Komikawa [0040][-[0051] disclosing the first mode is an autonomous driving mode and the second mode is a manual driving mode);.
Claims 10, 19 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1, see above rejection.
Claims 18 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 9, see above rejection.
Claims 11, 20 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 2, see above rejection.
Claims 14-15 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 5, 6, respectively, see above rejection.
Claims 7, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Komikawa (US20220306145) in view of Hackenberg (US20150094899) and Payne (US10017172) and Schmidt (US20200156630).
Regarding claim 7, Komikawa as modified by Payne and Hackenberg and Schmidt does not teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising: displaying a corresponding first safety boundary identifier on the navigation route in response to a traveling state of the vehicle being a vehicle-following state, the first safety boundary identifier being configured for indicating a predicted location at which the vehicle keeps a safe driving distance from a preceding vehicle.
Ryu teaches displaying a corresponding first safety boundary identifier on the navigation route in response to a traveling state of the vehicle being a vehicle-following state, the first safety boundary identifier being configured for indicating a predicted location at which the vehicle keeps a safe driving distance from a preceding vehicle ([0115]-0117] disclosing displaying the preceding vehicle and changing the shape of the virtual preceding vehicle when the distance is less than a critical safety value, herein the safety boundary identifier is represented by the shape of the vehicle when the safety distance is kept and change in shape or color when the safety distance is not kept).
Komikawa already teaches the choice of the switching point is considered to be away from obstacles and traffic locations [0040]-[0051], thus The combination of Ryu with Komikawa is obvious yielding predictable results, to indicate a safety distance for the driver so that the driver is notified when a safety distance is not kept in order to improve safety of driving.
Claims 16 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 7, see above rejection.
Claims 8, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Komikawa (US20220306145) in view of Hackenberg (US20150094899) and Payne (US10017172) and Schmidt (US20200156630).
Regarding claim 8, Komikawa as modified by Payne and Hackenberg and Schmidt does not teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising: displaying a corresponding second safety boundary identifier on the navigation route in response to a traveling state of the vehicle being an obstacle-avoiding state, the second safety boundary identifier being configured for indicating a predicted location at which the vehicle is to stop and keeps a safe driving distance from an obstacle.
Watanabe teaches displaying a corresponding second safety boundary identifier on the navigation route in response to a traveling state of the vehicle being an obstacle-avoiding state, the second safety boundary identifier being configured for indicating a predicted location at which the vehicle is to stop and keeps a safe driving distance from an obstacle ([39]-[44] disclosing displaying a recommended stop position that is a predetermined distance away from an obstacle to avoid the obstacle).
Komikawa already discloses taking in consideration obstacles and traffic when determining a switch position on the map, It would be obvious to combine the teaching of Watanabe of displaying the position of stop location from an obstacle, in order to insure safely stopping of the vehicle in an emergency situation yielding predictable results improving driving safety.
Claims 17 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 8, see above rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. arguments with respect to the independent claims 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.
The new reference Hackenberg teaches “transmitting, in response to the dynamic location identifier arriving at a second information prompt location, first prompt information”. Schmidt further teaches the combination of multiple alerts, which is obvious in order to make the driver more aware in case a driver misses one of the indicators.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20100153000 disclosing changing a display of a map as the first, second, third thresholds are reached from an intersection.
US20210300403 disclosing displaying and alerting the driver of a switchover location at predetermined first and second distances from the switchover location.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
Prosecution Insights