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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Newlin et al., US 20160061620 A1, hereinafter, “Newlin”.
Regarding claim 1, Newlin teaches:
A vehicle method, comprising:
providing one or more computer processors communicatively coupled with a display of a vehicle ([0047],[0058]);
processing data using the one or more computer processors;
using the processed data, displaying, on one or more user interfaces displayed on the display of the vehicle, a visual summary of a defined route for a trip ([0013], [0047]-[0048]), the visual summary comprising:
a start indicator representing a starting location of the defined route ([0006], [0031], and Fig. 1, __indicator A represents start location of the defined route__);
an end indicator representing an end location of the defined route (Fig. 1, __indicator B represents end location of the defined route);
a straight line, representing a timeline, drawn between the start indicator and the end indicator (Figs. 1-5, __linear visual indicator 104, See also associated paragraphs__); and
a progress indicator, the progress indicator displayed on a location between the start indicator and the end indicator corresponding with a time-based completion percentage of the trip ([0036], and Fig.3, “position indicator 302 indicates the progress the user has made along a previously calculated and displayed route”).
Regarding claim 12, Newlin teaches wherein the progress indicator includes a weather indicator indicating one or more weather conditions at a current location of the vehicle ([0034], and Fig 2, __indicator 125 the top row of figure 2 shows the linear info graph and indicator 125 shows the weather condition at the current location of the vehicle__).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newlin et al., US 20160061620 A1, hereinafter, “Newlin”, in view of Barnes US20140330517, hereinafter “Barnes”.
Regarding claim 2, Newlin discloses the vehicle method of claim 1, however, Newlin doesn’t explicitly teach the one or more user interfaces do not display a geographic map.
Nevertheless, Barnes teaches wherein the one or more user interfaces do not display a geographic map ([0124], “[…] In such circumstances, it may be desirable to provide a user with a transit timeline that is absent a geographical representation.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the navigation system taught by Newline with a user interface that lacks a geographic map as taught by Barnes, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a simplified infographic-based trip visualization rather than a primarily cartographic presentation. This modification would be motivated by presenting trip information for the user in a way that is easier to understand and avoid overloading the user by showing only the necessarily information associated with the trip and removing distracting and static streets grid element from the navigation visual presentation.
Regarding claims 13, 18 and 19, Newlin teaches: A vehicle method, comprising:
providing one or more computer processors communicatively coupled with display of a vehicle ([0047], [0058]);
processing data using the one or more computer processors; using the processed data, displaying, on one or more user interfaces displayed on the display of the vehicle, a visual summary of a defined route for a trip ([0013], [0047]-[0048]),
the visual summary comprising: a start indicator representing a starting location of the defined route ([0006], [0031], and Fig. 1, __indicator A represents start location of the defined route__); an end indicator representing an end location of the defined route (Fig. 1, __indicator B represents end location of the defined route); a timeline drawn between the start indicator and the end indicator; and a progress indicator (Figs. 1-5, __linear visual indicator 104, See also associated paragraphs__), a straight line, representing a timeline, drawn between the start indicator and the end indicator (Figs. 1-5, __linear visual indicator 104, See also associated paragraphs__), the progress indicator indicating a time-based completion percentage of the trip ([0036], and Fig.3, “position indicator 302 indicates the progress the user has made along a previously calculated and displayed route”);
Newline doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the one or more user interfaces excludes a geographic map.
However, Barnes teaches wherein the one or more user interfaces excludes a geographic map ([0124], “[] In such circumstances, it may be desirable to provide a user with a transit timeline that is absent a geographical representation.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the navigation system taught by Newline with a user interface that lacks a geographic map as taught by Barnes, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a simplified infographic-based trip visualization rather than a primarily cartographic presentation. This modification would be motivated by presenting trip information for the user in a way that is easier to understand and avoid overloading the user by showing only the necessarily information associated with the trip and removing distracting and static streets grid element from the navigation visual presentation.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newlin, in view of Delorme et al, US 20030182052 A1, hereinafter “Delorme”.
Regarding claim 3, Newlin teaches the vehicle method of claim 1, and Newlin teaches further comprising displaying, on the one or more user interfaces:
a transition indicator, the transition indicator representing a transition location at which a driver of the vehicle will need to transition from a first road to a second road to remain on the defined route (at least Fig. 1 element 101),
Newlin doesn’t teach a first estimated time indicator representing an estimated amount of time from a present time until a time at which the represented transition location will be reached.
However, Delorme teaches:
a first estimated time indicator representing an estimated amount of time from present time until a time at which the represented transition location will be reached (Abstract, [0068] “time and distance to next turn in the readouts at the bottom of the "Directions" screen.”, [0071], Fig. 14Aa “TIME TO NEXT”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the navigation system taught by Newline to include an indicator representing an amount of time to the next transition location as taught by Delorme, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a driver with a sense of time left until the next road change which improves driver focus and peace of mind.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newlin, in view of Zhou US 20180128636 A1, hereinafter “Zhou”.
Regarding claim 4, Newlin teaches the vehicle method of claim 1, however, Newlin doesn’t teach further comprising displaying, on the one or more user interfaces: a municipality indicator representing a municipality located between the starting location and the end location and; an estimated time indicator representing an estimated amount of time from a present time until a time at which the represented municipality will be reached.
Nevertheless, Zhou teaches:
further comprising displaying, on the one or more user interfaces: a municipality indicator representing a municipality located between the starting location and the end location (Fig. 2) and;
an estimated time indicator representing an estimated amount of time from a present time until a time at which the represented municipality will be reached (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the navigation system taught by Newline to include a municipality indicator and estimated amount of time at which the represented municipality will be reached as taught by Zhou, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a driver with information regarding the geographical/municipality location and the time left to reach that location.
Claims 5, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newlin, in view of Quint, US20190219417, hereinafter “Quint”; and Claim 14 (which depends from claim 13 and includes similar limitations as recited in claims 6 and 7) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newlin, in view of Barnes, further in view of Quint.
Regrading claim 5, Newlin teaches the vehicle method of claim 1, however, Newlin doesn’t teach further comprising displaying, on the one or more user interfaces, a fuel/charge indicator representing a location between the starting location and the end location at which a driver may refill/recharge the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Quint teaches further comprising displaying, on the one or more user interfaces, a fuel/charge indicator representing a location between the starting location and the end location at which a driver may refill/recharge the vehicle ([0023], [0027], [0041], Fig. 8)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the navigation system taught by Newline to include a fuel/charge station indicator for a location along the route as taught by Quint, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of minimizing driver effort and route disruption in situations that the driver needs to refill/charge the vehicle.
Regarding claims 6-7 and claim 14 (which depends from claim 13 and includes similar limitations as recited in claims 6 and 7), Newlin teaches the vehicle method of claim 1, and Newlin in view of Barnes teaches the vehicle method of claim 13, however, Newlin alone or in combination with Barnes doesn’t teach further comprising displaying, on the one or more user interfaces, a fuel/charge indicator representing a location between the starting location and the end location at which a driver may refill/recharge the vehicle; and further comprising, in response to user selection of a first selector displayed on one of the one or more user interfaces, displaying a plurality of fuel/charge station options on the one or more user interfaces.
Nevertheless, Quint teaches:
comprising, in response to user selection of a first selector displayed on one of the one or more user interfaces, displaying a plurality of fuel/charge station options on the one or more user interfaces ([0023], [0040], [0041] “display one or more timelines [] associated with a different category of interest. For example, the interest category associated with each timeline 304 may be one of fuel (e.g., gas stations, EV charging stations),”, [0045] “Responsive to a user selection of each tab 310, the on-the-horizon graphic object 302 may be configured to display the timeline 304 associated with the tab 310”, [0048], [0057] “FIG. 8 illustrates a screen 800 that may be shown by the horizon navigation GUI 137 responsive to a user selecting the tab […] the on-the-horizon graphic object 302 may be configured to show the timeline 304D, which may be associated with the interest category of upcoming gas stations and/or upcoming electric vehicle (“EV”) charging stations.”, [0058] “timeline 304D may include several gas station indicators”).
comprising displaying one or more selectors on the one or more user interfaces which, when selected, automatically modifies the defined route to include a stop at one of the fuel/charge station options ([0061], “Each station included in the additional information window 902 may be user-selectable. Upon selection of one of the stations shown in the additional information window 902 by a user, the horizon navigation software 136 may be configured to add the station as a waypoint to the set route.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the navigation system taught by Newline to include displaying a plurality of fuel/charge station options in respond to the user request and to include an active selector, that when selected by the user, automatically modify the defined route to the selected fuel/charge station (automated solution), with the motivation of minimizing driver effort in navigating to a fuel/charge station.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newlin, in view of Quint, further in view Santiago Nunez et al., EP 3967979 A1, hereinafter “Santiago Nunez”; and Claim 15 (which depends from claim 14 and include the same limitation as recited in claim 8) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newlin, in view of Barnes, further in view of Quint, and further in view of Santiago Nunez;
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Newlin in view of Quint teaches the vehicle method of claim 6, and Newlin in view of Barnes and Quint teaches the vehicle method of claim 14, however, Newlin doesn’t teach wherein the fuel/charge station options include a least detour option, determined by the one or more computer processors to be an option requiring a least amount of detour from the defined route.
Although Quint, relied upon for the rejection of claim 6, teaches limiting the display of the on-the-horizon graphic object/occurrence (e.g. gas station) on the timeline, to the ones that are physically on the route within a predetermined distance of the route and also suggests an additional window including a distance section for each occurrence that indicate a current distance of the gas station (See at least [0040], [0061]), however, Quint doesn’t explicitly suggest or disclose wherein the fuel/charge station options include a least detour option, determined by the one or more computer processors to be an option requiring a least amount of detour from the defined route
Nevertheless, Santiago Nunez teaches wherein the fuel/charge station options include a least detour option, determined by the one or more computer processors to be an option requiring a least amount of detour from the defined route (Figs. 11a and 11b, and [0271], “some alternative features which may be used in representing an alternative route on a linear representation of the main route in step 48. In particular these further embodiments indicate a property of the alternative route which has led to its being presented to the user, e.g. that the route is a fastest route, most economical route, shortest route, etc. […] The icon indicates that the route is 6 minutes slower than the main route.”, also see [0016], [0045], [0082], [0114], [0122]-[0123], “the method further comprises (and the system comprises means for) identifying an upcoming second decision point along the main route determined to be travelled by a user after passing through the first decision point, and generating one or more alternative routes between the second decision point and the destination”, [0132]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the navigation system taught by Newline to include displaying a fuel/charge station option which includes the least detour/shortest route, with the motivation of minimizing driver effort in navigating the vehicle to the closes fuel/charge station.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newlin in view of Quint, further in view of Song et al. US 20170155720 A1, hereinafter “Song”, or in alternative rejection, Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newlin in view of Quint, further in view of Leberknight, US 20060095390, hereinafter “Leberknight”;
and Claim 16 (which depends from claim 14 and recites similar limitation as claim 9) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newlin in view of Barnes, further in view of Quint, and further in view of Song (or in alternative rejection Leberknight).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Newlin in view of Quint teaches the vehicle method of claim 6, and Newlin in view of Barnes and Quint teaches the vehicle method of claim 14, however, Newlin doesn’t teach wherein the fuel/charge station options include a cheapest option, determined by the one or more computer processors to be an option requiring a least amount of cost for a vehicle refuel/recharge.
Nevertheless, Song teaches wherein the fuel/charge station options include a cheapest option, determined by the one or more computer processors to be an option requiring a least amount of cost for a vehicle refuel/recharge ([0415] “the navigation may include, for example, a list of arranged gas stations when the oil supply to the transport device 20 is low. In detail, the list of gas stations […] may be arranged in an inexpensive price order.”)
In alternative rejection, Leberknight also teaches wherein the fuel/charge station options include a cheapest option, determined by the one or more computer processors to be an option requiring a least amount of cost for a vehicle refuel/recharge ([0002]-[0003], [0007], “FIG. 3 shows a map with symbols representing a plurality of gas station locations”, [0017], “contain the location of gas stations related to the vehicle's current position, “curr_loc”, and gas prices at each individual gas station within a specific geographic area.”, [0018], “The location of the gas station or stations that provides the minimum cost along with the price, using global positioning, is sent back from the satellite 12 via communications path 12b to the vehicles navigation system”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the navigation system taught by Newline in view of prior arts relied upon to include displaying a fuel/charge station option which includes the cheapest option as taught by Song or in alternative rejection by Leberknight, with the motivation of minimizing driver effort in finding the most cost-effective fuel/charge station along the route.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newlin in view of Quint, further in view of Hansen et al., US 20170299402 A1; and Claim 17 (which depends from claim 14 and recites similar limitation as claim 10) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newlin in view of Barnes, further in view of Quint, and further in view of Hansen.
Regarding claim 10 and 17, Newlin in view of Quint teaches the vehicle method of claim 6, and Newlin in view of Barnes and Quint teaches the vehicle method of claim 14, however, Newlin doesn’t teach wherein the fuel/charge station options include a most productive option, determined by the one or more computer processors to be an option including a highest amount, within one of a predetermined geographic area and a predetermined amount of driving time, of one or more of: sit-down restaurants; fast food restaurants; coffee shops; and grocery stores.
Nevertheless, Hansen teaches wherein the fuel/charge station options include a most productive option, determined by the one or more computer processors to be an option including a highest amount, within one of a predetermined geographic area and a predetermined amount of driving time, of one or more of: sit-down restaurants; fast food restaurants; coffee shops; and grocery stores (See Abstract, [0004], [0005] “Effective selection and presentation of POIs that meet actual or contemplated needs of vehicle occupants”, [0008], “to provide a limited, yet highly relevant, set of proposed POIs for consideration by vehicle occupants during operation of a vehicle on a configured trip.”, [0010]-[0011], [0029], “a combined POI rating value is calculated for a group of POIs comprising at least one POI for a specified set of POI categories (e.g., gas, food, grocery, hotel, etc.) within a same general location (e.g. a same highway exit).”, [0034], [0038], [0064], [0086], “POI ratings”, [0090], [0106], [0110] “a need rating is separately maintained for the following types of POIs: gasoline stations, lodging/overnight rest areas, driver rest areas, etc.”, [0132] “Additionally, proposed waypoints are also inserted along a trip route based upon estimates/predictions of vehicle/occupant needs along the trip route. In that regard, for each indicated need (e.g., gas, food, lodging, etc.) at a locality corresponding to a particular waypoint, the proposed POI module 270 obtains the highest rated POI meeting the indicated need (e.g. gas).”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the navigation system as taught by Newlin in view of prior arts relied upon to include prioritization of proposed point of interests (POIs) (like showing gas stations options that include most productive option) taught by Hansen, which teaches ranking/rating POIs based on higher rates of satisfying occupants needs (e.g. fuel stations that also provide food, lodging, etc). This modification would be driven, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing the driver’s distraction as combining these teachings enables a navigation system to present only the most relevant, and comprehensive waypoint/POI options, thereby improving driver comfort and enhancing vehicle safety.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newlin, in view of Tanaka DE 112012005729 T5, hereinafter “Tanaka”.
Regarding claim 11, Newlin teaches the vehicle method of claim 1, however, Newlin doesn’t teach wherein the progress indicator includes a current fuel/charge indicator indicating a present state of fuel/charge of the vehicle.
Tanaka teaches wherein the progress indicator includes a current fuel/charge indicator indicating a present state of fuel/charge of the vehicle (Fig. 30 __element J6 shows a fuel gauge on a display that shows navigation map as well__).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the navigation system taught by Newline to include displaying a fuel/charge indicator which presents state of fuel/charge of the vehicle taught by Tanaka, with the motivation of helping the driver to continuously monitor remaining fuel and reduces the risk of running out of fuel. This motivation is predictable by a person with ordinary skill in the art as it minimizes the driver distraction by integrating important vehicle status (like fuel status) into navigation interface.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newlin, in view of Barnes, or in alternative rejection, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newlin, in view of Barnes, further in view of Quint.
Regarding claim 20, Newlin in view of Barnes teaches the vehicle method of claim 19, and although Newlin suggest distance being additional information which implicitly suggests wherein the user interface excludes a distance indicator, however, for the purpose of compact prosecution, Quint more explicitly suggests a navigation system that the interface only includes time and not distance.
Therefore, Quint teaches wherein the user interface excludes a distance indicator (e.g. Fig. 11, [0003], “The graphic object includes a timeline for the route that indicates travel times between a current position of the navigation system on the route and occurrences of an interest category associated with the timeline on the route.”, [0023], “illustrate the categorical occurrences on one or more timelines showing the travel time between the current position of the navigation system and each occurrence.”, [0059], __Note: the timelines described in the reference excludes a distance indicator__)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the navigation system as taught by Newlin in view of prior art to exclude the distance indicator as also implicitly taught by Newlin and explicitly taught by taught by Quint, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing real-time information by reflecting actual travel time rather that just physical distance that helps drivers better plan arrival an decisions based on time.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Dok, et al., US20150247737, discloses A method of providing information relating to a path being travelled using a navigation apparatus, involves displaying a path bar including a linear representation of at least a portion of a path to be travelled using a navigation apparatus.
Kazawa et al., US 20140107917 A1, discloses a navigation device, a method for displaying an icon, and a navigation program and, in particular, to a navigation device, a method for displaying an icon, and a navigation program suitable for providing information regarding navigation functions in a simple display format.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights