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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on January 15, 2025. Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. KR 2022011242, filed on July 29, 2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of foreign application KR 2022011242, however the present application does not properly claim priority to the submitted foreign application. If this copy is being filed to obtain priority to the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), applicant must also file a claim for such priority as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or 365(b), and 37 CFR 1.55. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the priority claim must be made in either the oath or declaration or in an application data sheet; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the claim for foreign priority must be presented in an application data sheet.
If the application being examined is an original application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (other than a design application), the claim for priority must be presented during the pendency of the application, and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1). If the application being examined is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and Regulations under the PCT. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(2). Any claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) not presented within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55 is considered to have been waived. If a claim for foreign priority is presented after the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55, the claim may be accepted if the claim properly identifies the prior foreign application and is accompanied by a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority and the petition fee.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 15, 2025 & November 28, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a communication module that communicates with the vehicle and a cloud server in claim 1 contains structure in [0016]: “processor that receives sensing data of the vehicle through the communication module”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 utilizes acronyms therein, such as “POI” & “AR”. However, the acronyms are not defined within the claims. While the examiner does not believe that the acronyms used give rise to indefiniteness, the examiner strongly encourages the applicant to provide a full term in the first instance (e.g. Point of Interest (POI)) so that each subsequent recitation of the acronyms are clear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “710” in Figs. 7 & 8 has been used to designate both “Driving System” and “Second Signage Data Processing”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites …a display on which a traveling image of the vehicle, acquired through a vision sensor, is displayed; and… however it is uncertain if a traveling image of the vehicle is referring to an image of the vehicle which is being displayed, or an image displayed on the vehicle, such as on the windshield, via the vision sensor as specified in [0059] of the specification. For examination on the merits its will be interpreted as the latter.
Claims 3-4 recite …the amount of change in the heading angle of the vehicle… however, it is uncertain if change is referring to the difference between the various turning angles or the rate of change of angle (e.g. angular velocity). For examination on its merits, it will be interpreted as the rate of change of angle.
Claim 4 recites wherein the processor maintains the display of digital signage in a display region located in the opposite direction to the turning direction while the amount of change in the heading angle of the vehicle exceeds the preset threshold value, however it is uncertain if the maintaining of the display means continuing to restrict the display as in Claim 3 or not restricting the display. For examination on its merits, it will be interpreted as continuing to restrict the display as in Claim 3.
Claim 7 recites the vehicle travels while being path-guided. However, it is uncertain what path-guided means in the context of the claim. For examination on the merits, it will be interpreted as following a predetermined path during navigation.
Claim 12 recites …the processor may correct the AR signage data…the phrase may correct makes everything following in the limitation sound optional. For examination on its merits, the correction will be interpreted as not-optional.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, & 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0180485 A1 to Kim et al., hereafter Kim in view of US 2017/0200048 A1, to Yamada and US 2020/0184219 A1, to Mugura et al., hereafter Mugura.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses An AR signage display apparatus operating in conjunction with a vehicle (Kim [0318]-[0323] & Fig. 11A, Examiner Note: Kim discloses a driver in a vehicle being displayed a graphic (i.e. AR signage) on the windshield), the apparatus comprising: a communication module that communicates with the vehicle and a cloud server… (Kim [0256]-[0259], Examiner Note: Kim discloses a communication unit, 810 which communicates with an external apparatus (e.g. a cloud server)); a display on which a traveling image of the vehicle, acquired through a vision sensor, is displayed (Kim [0261], & Fig. 9, Examiner Note: Kim discloses a sensing unit which includes a camera which is used to receives a preview image (i.e. traveling image) image via the camera); and a processor that receives sensing data of the vehicle through the communication module (Kim [0248] & [0331], Examiner Note: Kim discloses a processor, 870, which acquires the GPS of the vehicle (i.e. sensing data) which is performed through he communication unit, 810),… content for neighboring a POI determined on the basis of a location of the vehicle and the sensing data of the vehicle and renders the digital signage (Kim [0344], Examiner Note: Kim discloses the shape and destination of the destination position (i.e. POI) of the AR graphic is changed based on the vehicles traveling (i.e. location and sensing data)), generated on the basis of the AR signage data corresponding to the request, onto a display region within the traveling image (Kim [0341], Examiner Note: Kim discloses the graphic object being superimposed on the location of the previously obtained preview image, a.k.a. image (i.e. traveling image) and outputs destination POI information),
However, Kim does not specifically disclose …a cloud server providing an AR signage platform service…makes a request to the cloud server for AR signage data for displaying, as digital signage,… wherein the processor determines the occurrence of a condition for restricting the display of the digital signage, on the basis of traveling information of the vehicle and map information, which are received while the vehicle travels, corrects the AR signage data matched with a location at which the condition for restricting the display occurs, and performs a rendering update of the digital signage on the basis of the corrected AR signage data.
Yamada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …a cloud server providing an AR signage platform service…makes a request to the cloud server for AR signage data for displaying, as digital signage, (Yamada [0030] & [0087]-[0089], Examiner Note: Yamada teaches restaurant information providing server (i.e. server) which provides the AR information to be displayed in a superimposed manner)…,
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the AR graphic object superimposing of Kim with the with the AR information server of Yamada in order to provide detailed information about a service such as business hours or menu of a business at a particular location (Yamada [0057]).
Mugura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor determines the occurrence of a condition for restricting the display of the digital signage, on the basis of traveling information of the vehicle and map information, which are received while the vehicle travels, corrects the AR signage data matched with a location at which the condition for restricting the display occurs, and performs a rendering update of the digital signage on the basis of the corrected AR signage data (Mugura [0252]-[0257], Examiner Note: Mugura teaches condition 1 in which it is determined whether a superimposition of a graphic is appropriate or inappropriate (i.e. restricted) based on the angular velocity (i.e. turning-related traveling information) is greater than a minimum reference value (i.e. preset threshold value) on a curved road (i.e. vehicle and map information). If it is found that the superimposition is inappropriate, the superimposition is prevented from occurring while the vehicle, and therefore the frames (i.e. AR signage data) is no longer provided with the content (i.e. signage data is corrected)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the AR graphic object superimposing of Kim with the frame updating condition of Mugura in order to present information in a form that the information can be viewed as if the information is fit into the scene for the driver to view while concentrating on driving (Mugura [0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim in view of Yamada and Mugura teach The AR signage display apparatus of claim 1,
As shown above, Mugura teaches wherein the processor receives turning-related traveling information of the vehicle, recognizes, on the basis of the received turning-related traveling information, a display region located in a turning direction as the location at which the condition for restricting the display occurs, and corrects the AR signage data matched with the display region direction (Mugura [0252]-[0257], Examiner Note: Mugura teaches condition 1 in which it is determined whether a superimposition of a graphic is appropriate or inappropriate (i.e. restricted) based on the angle with respect to the vehicle traveling direction (i.e. turning-related traveling information) is greater than a minimum reference value (i.e. preset threshold value) on a curved road (i.e. vehicle and map information). If it is found that the superimposition is inappropriate, the superimposition is prevented from occurring while the vehicle, and therefore the frames (i.e. AR signage data) is no longer provided with the content (i.e. signage data is corrected)).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim in view of Yamada and Mugura teach The AR signage display apparatus of claim 2,
As shown above, Mugura teaches wherein the processor determines, on the basis of the received turning-related traveling information, that an amount of change in a heading angle of the vehicle exceeds a preset threshold value, and, on the basis of the determination, corrects the AR signage data in such a manner as to display-restrict digital signage in the display region located in the turning direction (Mugura [0252]-[0257], Examiner Note: Mugura teaches condition 1 in which it is determined whether a superimposition of a graphic is appropriate or inappropriate (i.e. restricted) based on the angle with respect to the vehicle traveling direction (i.e. turning-related traveling information) is greater than a minimum reference value (i.e. preset threshold value) on a curved road (i.e. vehicle and map information). If it is found that the superimposition is inappropriate, the superimposition is prevented from occurring while the vehicle, and therefore the frames (i.e. AR signage data) is no longer provided with the content (i.e. signage data is corrected)).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim in view of Yamada and Mugura teaches The AR signage display apparatus of claim 3,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the processor maintains the display of digital signage in a display region located in the opposite direction to the turning direction while the amount of change in the heading angle of the vehicle exceeds the preset threshold value, and, in response to the amount of change in the heading angle of the vehicle decreasing to below the preset threshold value, corrects the AR signage data in such a manner as to cancel the restriction of the display of the digital signage in the display region located in the turning direction.
Mugura further teaches wherein the processor maintains the display of digital signage in a display region located in the opposite direction to the turning direction while the amount of change in the heading angle of the vehicle exceeds the preset threshold value, and, in response to the amount of change in the heading angle of the vehicle decreasing to below the preset threshold value, corrects the AR signage data in such a manner as to cancel the restriction of the display of the digital signage in the display region located in the turning direction (Mugura [0252]-[0258] & Fig. 22, Examiner Note: Mugura teaches a vehicle turning in the opposite direction of frames on buildings such as F_02. In the process of turning, it is determined if the angular velocity (i.e. change in the heading angle) of the vehicle is below or above a limit. If it is above the limit, the frames are deemed inappropriate and are not shown. However, if the angular velocity is below a limit, then the frames are deemed as appropriate and are shown (i.e. restriction is canceled)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the AR graphic object superimposing of Kim with the frame updating condition of Mugura in order to present information in a form that the information can be viewed as if the information is fit into the scene for the driver to view while concentrating on driving (Mugura [0005]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim in view of Yamada and Mugura teaches The AR signage display apparatus of claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the processor recognizes, on the basis of the current location of the vehicle and the map information, that the vehicle enters a specific section, and corrects the AR signage data in such a manner as to restrict the display of digital signage pieces in all neighboring display regions while the vehicle is present in the specific section.
Mugura further teaches wherein the processor recognizes, on the basis of the current location of the vehicle and the map information, that the vehicle enters a specific section, and corrects the AR signage data in such a manner as to restrict the display of digital signage pieces in all neighboring display regions while the vehicle is present in the specific section (Mugura [0206]-[0211] & Fig. 15, Examiner Note: Mugura teaches the frame setting unit, 214, excluding (i.e. correcting by restricting) all superimposition frames (i.e. all neighboring display regions) when the content is difficult to see when the side of the building (i.e. specific section visible to the vehicle) is too dark (i.e. condition)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the AR graphic object superimposing of Kim with the exclusion rules of Mugura in order to ensure the content is able to be seen by the driver (Mugura [0210]).
Regarding Claim 6, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 6 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 5; Therefore, claim 6 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 8, Kim in view of Yamada and Mugura teaches The AR signage display apparatus of claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the processor receives navigation information of the vehicle through the communication module and, in response to the vehicle entering a traveling direction change section or a destination section, determines, on the basis of the received navigation information, that the condition for restricting the display occurs.
Mugura further teaches wherein the processor receives navigation information of the vehicle through the communication module and, in response to the vehicle entering a traveling direction change section or a destination section, determines, on the basis of the received navigation information, that the condition for restricting the display occurs (Mugura [0255] & Fig. 22, Examiner Note: Mugura teaches that when the angle rate of the vehicle changes at a curve (i.e. traveling direction change section), certain frames such as F_01 and F_02 are determined as inappropriate frames and are not provided with content (i.e. restricted)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the AR graphic object superimposing of Kim with the exclusion rules of Mugura in order to ensure the content is able to be seen by the driver (Mugura [0210]).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim in view of Yamada and Mugura teaches The AR signage display apparatus of claim 1,
Kim further discloses wherein the correction of the AR signage data is correction of one of the following: the location, transparency, size, or shape of the corresponding digital signage (Kim [0327], Examiner Note: Kim discloses changing (i.e. correcting) the shape of the graphic output as required by the perspective of the driver and vehicle).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim in view of Yamada and Mugura teaches The AR signage display apparatus of claim 1,
As shown above, Mugura teaches wherein the processor determines at least one of the following techniques: correcting the location at which the condition for restricting the display occurs, and/or correcting AR signage data matched with the location, in a manner that varies depending on a change in an image distortion rate of the display region recognized through the vision sensor or a change in an area ratio between the front and lateral surfaces of the display region (Mugura [0252]-[0257], Examiner Note: Mugura teaches condition 1 in which it is determined whether a superimposition of a graphic is appropriate or inappropriate (i.e. restricted) based on the angular velocity (i.e. turning-related traveling information) is greater than a minimum reference value (i.e. preset threshold value) on a curved road (i.e. vehicle and map information). If it is found that the superimposition is inappropriate, the superimposition is prevented from occurring while the vehicle, and therefore the frames (i.e. AR signage data) is no longer provided with the content (i.e. signage data is corrected)).
Regarding Claim 14, Kim in view of Yamada and Mugura teaches The AR signage display apparatus of claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the traveling image including the display region in which the rendering-updated digital signage overlaps is displayed on the display, and the display of the AR digital signage is restored based on the termination of the condition for restricting the display, thereby the AR digital signage being displayed on the display.
Mugura further teaches wherein the traveling image including the display region in which the rendering-updated digital signage overlaps is displayed on the display, and the display of the AR digital signage is restored based on the termination of the condition for restricting the display, thereby the AR digital signage being displayed on the display (Mugura [0206]-[0211] & Fig. 15, Examiner Note: Mugura teaches the frame setting unit, 214, excluding (i.e. correcting by restricting) all superimposition frames (i.e. all neighboring display regions) when the content is difficult to see when the side of the building (i.e. specific section visible to the vehicle) is too dark (i.e. condition) and when the surface is no longer dark, the surface is not excluded from being displayed (i.e. restored)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the AR graphic object superimposing of Kim with the exclusion rules of Mugura in order to ensure the content is able to be seen by the driver (Mugura [0210]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9-10, & 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Since Claims 7, 12, and their parent claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b), it should be pointed out to the applicant that the examiner reserves the right to withdraw the allowable subject matter if the future amendments change the interpretation of the claims as-is. Any amendments to the claims may still be allowable subject to further search and consideration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ng-Thow-Hing; Victor (US 2016/0003636 A1) discloses a navigation monitoring and control which includes markers and digital avatars to guide the driver
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights