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 February 10, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-16 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Mimura does not disclose the limitation, "set a vehicle necessitating deceleration from among the surrounding vehicles detected by the vehicle detection device", of the amened claim 1, referring paragraphs [0062], [0104], Figs. 6-20 of Mimura.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the office action, the limitation is rejected citing Fig. 1, [0061], [0062], [0092], [0124] of Mimura.
Applicant further argued that Mimura or Leem does not teach determining which of surrounding vehicles are in an adjacent lane, and displaying vehicles necessitating deceleration and in an adjacent lane in a different mode.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the office action, the limitation is rejected citing Figs. 17, 18, paragraphs [0388], [0389] of Leem.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura (US 20200079379 A1), which was cited by Applicant in view of Leem et al. (US 20180165959 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mimura discloses:
An autonomous driving system {paragraph [0038] discloses autonomous driving control. Fig. 1 discloses automated driving control device 100} comprising: a vehicle detection device for detecting a distance to and relative speed of surrounding vehicles present in surroundings of a host vehicle {[0061] and [0062] disclose a recognizer, construed as the vehicle detector, which detects surrounding vehicles. Fig. 1 discloses the camera 10, radar 12 and object recognizing device 16. [0092] discloses distance and relative speed between the vehicles};
Fig. 1 is repeated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
2471
1902
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a display device of the host vehicle {Fig. 2 shows the display device 32 in the vehicle}
Fig. 2 is repeated below.
PNG
media_image2.png
784
1429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
for displaying the surrounding vehicles detected by the vehicle detection device as vehicle icons {[0007] discloses a displaying images resembling the other vehicles, construed as the vehicle icons, recognized. Fig. 20 and [0125] disclose that the host vehicle M and surrounding vehicles m1, m2, m3, m5 are displayed.};.
Fig. 20 is repeated below.
PNG
media_image3.png
1753
1899
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a processor that executes computer readable program instructions to control display content of the display device of the host vehicle, control autonomous driving of the host vehicle {[0007] discloses a display controller and a driving controller. [0097] discloses that the HMI controller 174 generates the image.};
set a vehicle necessitating deceleration from among the surrounding vehicles detected by the vehicle detection device {Fig. 1, [0061], [0062], [0092], [0124] discloses that the subject vehicle is controlled to be decelerated due to another vehicle rapidly decelerating}.
Examiner notes that [0124] discloses that the other vehicle’s behavior necessitates the deceleration of the host vehicle, and therefore, the other vehicle is a vehicle necessitating deceleration from among the surrounding vehicles detected by the vehicle detection device, according to paragraph [0047] of the specification of the present application, which provides: "vehicle necessitating deceleration" means a surrounding vehicle restricting the speed of the vehicle 20 (host vehicle) due to its behavior.
wherein the processor further executes computer readable program instructions to control acceleration and deceleration of the host vehicle based on the detected distance to and relative speed of the vehicle necessitating deceleration so that the host vehicle does not approach the vehicle necessitating deceleration {[0124] discloses that the host vehicle M is decelerated prior to m1 decelerating in reaction to m2 decelerating, which discloses host vehicle M being controlled to not approach m1 and m2, where m2 is the vehicle necessitating deceleration (m2 is decelerating and thus requiring m1 to have to slow also)};
when a plurality of surrounding vehicles detected by the vehicle detection device are displayed on the display device, the processor executes computer readable program instructions to display a vehicle icon of the vehicle necessitating deceleration in a display mode different from vehicle icons of remaining surrounding vehicles {[0113] discloses determining if one of the surrounding vehicles is a vehicle necessitating deceleration: to perceive other vehicles having direct influences on the behavior of the subject vehicle M. [0125] discloses that the direct influence of [0113] necessitates deceleration of the subject vehicle: another vehicle m2 that is a target for deceleration control of the subject vehicle M as a first vehicle having a direct influence on the behavior of the subject vehicle. Fig. 14 illustrates displaying a vehicle icon of the one vehicle (m3) necessitating deceleration in a display mode different from vehicle icons of remaining surrounding vehicles (m1, m2, m4, m5)}.
Mimura does not disclose:
when the vehicle necessitating deceleration is present in an adjacent lane of the host vehicle, the processor executes computer readable program instructions to display the vehicle icon of the vehicle necessitating deceleration so that the vehicle necessitating deceleration is emphasized more compared to when the vehicle necessitating deceleration is present in a driving lane of the host vehicle
Leem teaches displaying more emphasizing a vehicle that changes lanes when the vehicle is on the changed lane than when the vehicle is on the adjacent lane before changing lanes in Figs. 17, 18, and paragraph [0388]: when the vehicle 100 and said another vehicle 1400 are located on different lanes, the processor 870 may output only a first graphic object 1430 (information indicating a third type of another vehicle) and a second graphic object 1440 (area information for restricting entry), based on a preset driving regulation. [0389]: when the vehicle 100 and said another vehicle 1400 are located on the same lane, the processor 870 may output not only the first and second graphic objects 1430, 1440, but also third graphic objects 1450 a, 1450 b, 1450 c (information indicating a restricted (prohibited) manipulation when the vehicle 100 and said another vehicle 1400 move on the same lane), to the display unit 830.
Examiner notes that these teachings of Leem imply that when the own vehicle plans to change the lanes, the deceleration necessitating effect of a surrounding vehicle on an adjacent lane is bigger than a surrounding vehicle on the same lane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to incorporate the emphasizing display feature for a surrounding vehicle depending on lanes feature of Leem with the described invention of Mimura in order to facilitate displaying differently according to effects on driving difficulty.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 12.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, Mimura discloses:
wherein when the vehicle necessitating deceleration is positioned in an adjacent lane of the host vehicle and a preceding vehicle is detected in a driving lane of the host vehicle, if a distance between the host vehicle and the vehicle necessitating deceleration is shorter than a distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle, the processor is configured to display the vehicle icon of the vehicle necessitating deceleration in a display mode different from the vehicle icons of the remaining surrounding vehicles {Fig. 10 and [0106] disclose that the distance between the host vehicle and the vehicle necessitating deceleration is shorter than a distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle, and the vehicle icon of the vehicle necessitating deceleration is displayed in a different mode}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, Mimura does not explicitly disclose: wherein when the vehicle necessitating deceleration is positioned in an adjacent lane of the host vehicle and a preceding vehicle is not detected in a driving lane of the host vehicle, if a distance between the host vehicle and the vehicle necessitating deceleration is shorter than a predetermined distance, the processor is configured to display the vehicle icon of the vehicle necessitating deceleration in a display mode different from the vehicle icons of the remaining surrounding vehicles.
Related to the above limitations, Mimura teaches a preceding vehicle not detected in a driving lane in [0067]: another vehicle that is present within a predetermined distance (for example, within 100 [m]) in front of the subject vehicle. Examiner notes that the predetermined distance implies that preceding vehicle far away enough need not be considered as a preceding vehicle that influences control of the host vehicle. [0067] also teaches maintaining inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the other vehicle. That is, if a distance between the host vehicle and the vehicle necessitating deceleration is shorter than a predetermined distance, the inter-vehicle distance requirement is not met, and deceleration is necessitated. [0104] teaches displaying the other vehicle in a different mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of detecting non-existence of a preceding vehicle, maintaining inter-vehicle distance and different display of the other vehicle in adjacent lane in order to provide near collision warning to a driver.
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1, Mimura discloses: wherein the processor is configured to display the vehicle icon of the vehicle necessitating deceleration so that the vehicle necessitating deceleration is the most emphasized among the plurality of surrounding vehicles displayed on the display device {Fig. 10 illustrates that the vehicle necessitating deceleration is displayed the most emphasized}.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 1, Mimura discloses: wherein the processor is configured to display a vehicle icon of a first preceding vehicle positioned in front of the host vehicle in a driving lane of the host vehicle and closest to the host vehicle in a display mode different from the vehicle icons of the remaining surrounding vehicles {Fig. 14 illustrates that a first preceding vehicle is displayed differently}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 6, Mimura discloses: wherein if a distance between the first preceding vehicle and the host vehicle is shorter than a predetermined distance, the processor is configured to display the vehicle icon of the first preceding vehicle in a display mode different from the vehicle icons of the remaining surrounding vehicles {[0062] discloses that the distance is shorter than a threshold. [0125] discloses different mode display of the preceding vehicle}.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 6, Mimura discloses: wherein the processor is configured to display the vehicle icon of the first preceding vehicle so that the first preceding vehicle is emphasized more than surrounding vehicles besides the vehicle necessitating deceleration {Fig. 14 discloses that the first preceding vehicle is more emphasized}.
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 6, Mimura discloses: wherein when a lane change of the host vehicle is being executed by the vehicle control part, the processor is configured to display a vehicle icon of a surrounding vehicle positioned in front of the host vehicle in a lane after the lane change and closest to the host vehicle, in place of the first preceding vehicle, in a display mode different than the vehicle icons of the remaining surrounding vehicles {[0108] discloses that the first preceding vehicle is displayed with more emphasis after the lane change}.
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 1, Mimura discloses: wherein when a surrounding vehicle displayed on the display device is set as the vehicle necessitating deceleration, the processor is configured to change a display mode of a vehicle icon of the surrounding vehicle {[0125]}.
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 1, Mimura discloses: wherein when a surrounding vehicle present in the adjacent lane of the host vehicle and displayed on the display device is set as the vehicle necessitating deceleration, the processor is configured to change the display mode of a vehicle icon of the surrounding vehicle {[0106]}.
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 1, Leem teaches: wherein the processor executes computer readable program instructions to display the vehicle icon of the vehicle necessitating deceleration in a first display mode when the vehicle necessitating deceleration is present in the adjacent lane of the host vehicle, and display the vehicle icon of the vehicle necessitating deceleration in a second display mode when the vehicle necessitating deceleration is present in the driving lane of the host vehicle {Figs. 17, 18, [0388], [0389]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to incorporate the differently displaying feature for a surrounding vehicle depending on lanes feature of Leem with the described invention of Mimura in order to facilitate displaying differently according to effects on driving difficulty.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 15.
Claim(s) 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura in view of Leem and in further view of Muraki (JP2017181125).
Relating claim 14, which depends from claim 13, modified Mimura does not teach: wherein the first display mode is different in hue from the second display mode.
Muraki teaches use of different hue in vehicle display in paragraph [0051] of English translation: the degree of emphasis can be represented by the amount of color change from the basic color. The amount of change in color is at least one of hue, saturation, and lightness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to incorporate the different hue display feature of Muraki with the described invention of modified Mimura in order to facilitate displaying differently.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 16.
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 CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights