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 . Claims 1 and 5-8 were previously pending. Claims 1 and 7-8 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or newly added. Thus, claims 1 and 5-8 remain pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka (JP 2017-67515 A, cited in the IDS dated 4/26/2024, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 4/16/2025 and is being relied upon) in view of Ito (WO 2013/080310 A1, a copy and full translation of which were provided with the IDS dated 4/26/2024, and are being relied upon).
As per claim 1, Kosaka discloses a display control device (Fig. 1, [0010, 0013, 0015] – vehicle display device includes a control device 13), comprising: a processor ([0015] – control device 13 is composed of a microcomputer) configured to: (i) acquire a travel route of a vehicle ([0010] – guide route), the travel route including a first travel path (Fig. 3 – path before intersection C) and a second travel path that turns at an intersection from the first travel path (Fig. 3 – intersection C and beyond after the left turn); (ii) when there is a course change from the first travel path to the second travel path at the intersection, determines whether the second travel path exists outside or inside a determination region set in a display region of a display unit (see Figs. 4a-4b, [0007, 0029-0031] – when vehicle 31 is at position A, the intersection C is not within the field of view… when vehicle 31 is at position B, the intersection C is within the field of view); (iii) set a display position on the display region of a guidance display that guides the vehicle at a first position of the display region when the second travel path exists outside a determination region and the course change is a left turn (see Fig. 4a, [0007, 0029-0031] – when vehicle 31 is at position A, the intersection C is not within the field of view… an image including only an arrow E indicating the turning direction is generated [Examiner note: The only disclosure of the determination region in the specification is at paragraph [0041] which does not specify or define what the determination region is. Without further specifying or defining what the determination region is, this term is interpreted broadly. According to BRI the determination could be any region of the display region or an entirety of the display region.]); (iv) set the display position of the guidance display at a second position of the display region when the second travel path exists outside the determination region and the course change is a right turn (see Fig. 4a, [0007, 0029-0031] – when vehicle 31 is at position A, the intersection C is not within the field of view… an image including only an arrow E indicating the turning direction is generated); (v) set the display position of the guidance display at a side of the first travel path in the display region when the second travel path exists inside the determination region (see Fig. 4b, [0033-0035] – when vehicle 31 is at position B, the intersection C is within the field of view… generates mark images M11, M12, and M13 indicating the route after the change in the traveling direction at the position of the intersection C in the display area, i.e., mark images M11, M12, and M13 are in the upper right hand corner and so are considered to be on the right side which is the side corresponding to the first travel path); (vi) display the guidance display, the display position of which has been set relative to a view ahead of the vehicle, so as to be superimposed on the display region (Figs. 4a-4b, [0014, 0029-0035] – display information superimposed on the display device 14… head-up display… display area D corresponds to the range of the field of view); and (vii) repeat the above (i) to (vi) (see at least Fig. 2, [0005, 0007, 0024, 0039] – the steps will be repeated at each turn, corner, or curve of the route).
Kosaka does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first position of the display region comprises a corner that is a left side and a near side of the intersection of the display region when the course change is a left turn; wherein the second position of the display region comprises a corner that is at a right side and a far side of the intersection of the display region when the course change is a right turn.
Ito, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the first position of the display region comprises a corner that is a left side and a near side of the intersection of the display region when the course change is a left turn (Fig. 24, [0047, 0071] - roadside bands 35a and 35b at the near left corner of the intersection for a left turn); wherein the second position of the display region comprises a corner that is at a right side and a far side of the intersection of the display region when the course change is a right turn (Fig. 11, [0033, 0047] – virtual wall surfaces 31b and 31c at the far right corner of the intersection for a right turn).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Ito into the invention of Kosaka with a reasonable expectation of success because the guidance objects displayed as guide rails or roadside bands are virtually provided on the guide path at a branch point such as an intersection and can intuitively guide the driver for safe steering (Ito – [0047, 0049]). The use of navigation indicators at various locations on displays is widely known in the industry. There are advantages of using different locations for different indicators. For example, placing indicators on the same side as the upcoming turn draws attention to the driver and could be more intuitive. In addition to the previously discussed advantages, selecting the location of the navigation indicators on the display region is a matter of design choice, and modifying the display position in the recited manner would yield predictable results. A driver can easily determine that a left turn arrow indicates that a left turn is approaching regardless of the location of the arrow in the display region, and therefore it is considered generally obvious as it would produce the same effective results of indicating directions to the driver.
Furthermore, if there is any doubt to the inherency that Kosaka repeats these steps (i) to (vi) for each turn of the route, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have repeated these steps for each turn in a route with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have known or been motivated to repeat these steps at each turn of a route, not just at a single turn, in order to help instruct driver navigate each turn of the route in advance (Kosaka – [0007]).
With respect to claims 7-8, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claims 7-8 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claims 7-8 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka in view of Ito and Hato (US 2021/0372810 A1).
As per claim 5, Kosaka does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processor displays the guidance display at the display region while changing the guidance display by animation.
Hato, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the processor displays the guidance display at the display region while changing the guidance display by animation ([0093] – The traveling direction guide Pid1 is displayed as an animation in which a triangular marker is repeatedly flown toward the left edge of the view VA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Hato into the invention of Kosaka with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of drawing the driver’s attention to the traveling direction guide. This would prevent the driver from missing the traveling direction guide when they need to make a turn, thereby improving safety.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka in view of Ito and Geelen (US 2012/0185165 A1).
As per claim 6, Kosaka does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the view ahead is an image captured by a camera installed in the vehicle, and the processor displays the guidance display at the display region so as to be superimposed on the captured image.
Geelen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the view ahead is an image captured by a camera installed in the vehicle, and the processor displays the guidance display at the display region so as to be superimposed on the captured image (Geelen – Figs. 5-6, [0071, 0075] - camera 24 positioned in or on the car… the navigation device 10 is arranged to display the real time feed from the camera on the display 18 and to combine or superimpose one or more navigation directions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Geelen into the invention of Kosaka with a reasonable expectation of success in order to display a user-friendly image to the user, allowing easy interpretation in a way that does not require complex mathematics and data processing (Geelen – [0080]).
Claims 1 and 7-8 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka in view of Wakayanagi (US 2020/0400455 A1, cited by the examiner in the Office action dated 5/22/2024).
As per the alternative rejection of claim 1, Kosaka discloses a display control device (Fig. 1, [0010, 0013, 0015] – vehicle display device includes a control device 13), comprising: a processor ([0015] – control device 13 is composed of a microcomputer) configured to: (i) acquire a travel route of a vehicle ([0010] – guide route), the travel route including a first travel path (Fig. 3 – path before intersection C) and a second travel path that turns at an intersection from the first travel path (Fig. 3 – intersection C and beyond after the left turn); (ii) when there is a course change from the first travel path to the second travel path at the intersection, determines whether the second travel path exists outside or inside a determination region set in a display region of a display unit (see Figs. 4a-4b, [0007, 0029-0031] – when vehicle 31 is at position A, the intersection C is not within the field of view… when vehicle 31 is at position B, the intersection C is within the field of view); (iii) set a display position on the display region of a guidance display that guides the vehicle at a first position of the display region when the second travel path exists outside a determination region and the course change is a left turn (see Fig. 4a, [0007, 0029-0031] – when vehicle 31 is at position A, the intersection C is not within the field of view… an image including only an arrow E indicating the turning direction is generated [Examiner note: The only disclosure of the determination region in the specification is at paragraph [0041] which does not specify or define what the determination region is. Without further specifying or defining what the determination region is, this term is interpreted broadly. According to BRI the determination could be any region of the display region or an entirety of the display region.]); (iv) set the display position of the guidance display at a second position of the display region when the second travel path exists outside the determination region and the course change is a right turn (see Fig. 4a, [0007, 0029-0031] – when vehicle 31 is at position A, the intersection C is not within the field of view… an image including only an arrow E indicating the turning direction is generated); (v) set the display position of the guidance display at a side of the first travel path in the display region when the second travel path exists inside the determination region (see Fig. 4b, [0033-0035] – when vehicle 31 is at position B, the intersection C is within the field of view… generates mark images M11, M12, and M13 indicating the route after the change in the traveling direction at the position of the intersection C in the display area, i.e., mark images M11, M12, and M13 are in the upper right hand corner and so are considered to be on the right side which is the side corresponding to the first travel path); (vi) display the guidance display, the display position of which has been set relative to a view ahead of the vehicle, so as to be superimposed on the display region (Figs. 4a-4b, [0014, 0029-0035] – display information superimposed on the display device 14… head-up display… display area D corresponds to the range of the field of view); and (vii) repeat the above (i) to (vi) (see at least Fig. 2, [0005, 0007, 0024, 0039] – the steps will be repeated at each turn, corner, or curve of the route).
Kosaka does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first position of the display region comprises a corner that is a left side and a near side of the intersection of the display region when the course change is a left turn; wherein the second position of the display region comprises a corner that is at a right side and a far side of the intersection of the display region when the course change is a right turn.
Wakayanagi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the first position of the display region comprises a corner that is a left side and a near side of the intersection of the display region when the course change is a left turn (Fig. 8, [0084] – IMG 20 at the near left corner for a left turn as shown); wherein the second position of the display region comprises a corner that is at a right side and a far side of the intersection of the display region when the course change is a right turn (Fig. 9, [0088] – IMG 32 at the far right corner for a right turn as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Wakayanagi into the invention of Kosaka with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of distinguishing the travelable traffic lines to the driver (Wakayanagi – [0010]). The use of navigation indicators at various locations on displays is widely known in the industry. In the case of Wakayanagi, when a driver is making a left turn into a near left lane, the near arrow is placed adjacent the near left corner of the intersection and when a driver is making a right turn to a far right lane, the arrow is placed adjacent to the far right corner of the intersection in order to safely and intuitively guide the driver to the proper lane. This implementation would yield predictable results. There are various instances where a near left corner display indicator for a left turn and a far right corner display indicator for a right turn would be applicable, and Wakayanagi demonstrates some of these scenarios.
Furthermore, if there is any doubt to the inherency that Kosaka repeats these steps (i) to (vi) for each turn of the route, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have repeated these steps for each turn in a route with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would clearly know that these steps would be repeated at each turn of a route, not just at a single turn, in order to help instruct driver navigate each turn of the route in advance (Kosaka – [0007]).
With respect to the alternative rejection of claims 7-8, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of the alternative rejection of claim 1, and it has been determined that the alternative rejection of claims 7-8 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in the alternative rejection of claim 1; therefore, the alternative rejection of claims 7-8 are also rejected over the same rationale as the alternative rejection of claim 1.
Claim 5 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka in view of Wakayanagi and Hato.
As per the alternative rejection of claim 5, Kosaka does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processor displays the guidance display at the display region while changing the guidance display by animation.
Hato, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the processor displays the guidance display at the display region while changing the guidance display by animation ([0093] – The traveling direction guide Pid1 is displayed as an animation in which a triangular marker is repeatedly flown toward the left edge of the view VA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Hato into the invention of Kosaka with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of drawing the driver’s attention to the traveling direction guide. This would prevent the driver from missing the traveling direction guide when they need to make a turn, thereby improving safety.
Claim 6 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka in view of Wakayanagi and Geelen.
As per the alternative rejection of claim 6, Kosaka does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the view ahead is an image captured by a camera installed in the vehicle, and the processor displays the guidance display at the display region so as to be superimposed on the captured image.
Geelen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the view ahead is an image captured by a camera installed in the vehicle, and the processor displays the guidance display at the display region so as to be superimposed on the captured image (Geelen – Figs. 5-6, [0071, 0075] - camera 24 positioned in or on the car… the navigation device 10 is arranged to display the real time feed from the camera on the display 18 and to combine or superimpose one or more navigation directions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Geelen into the invention of Kosaka with a reasonable expectation of success in order to display a user-friendly image to the user, allowing easy interpretation in a way that does not require complex mathematics and data processing (Geelen – [0080]).
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-8 filed 3/2/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that (1) the prior art fails to disclose determining whether the second travel path exists inside or outside a determination region set in a display region as recited in amended independent Claim 1. Applicant further argues that (2) Kosaka fails to disclose that the image display processing is performed repeatedly.
With respect to the argument that the prior art fails to disclose determining whether the second travel path exists inside or outside a determination region set in a display region as recited in amended independent Claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation must be determined. The only disclosure of the determination region in the specification is at paragraph [0041] which does not specify or define what the determination region is. Without further specifying or defining what the determination region is, this term is interpreted broadly. According to BRI the determination could be any region of the display region or an entirety of the display region. Since Kosaka does determine whether the second travel path is within the display region (see at least Figs. 4a-4b, [0007, 0029-0031]), according to BRI Kosaka still reads on this limitation.
With respect to the argument that Kosaka fails to disclose that the image processing is performed repeatedly, the examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would know or expect that steps would be repeated at each turn of the route, not just one turn and then not performed at other turns. However, if there is any doubt to the inherency that Kosaka repeats these steps (i) to (vi) for each turn of the route, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have repeated these steps for each turn in a route with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have known or been motivated to repeat these steps at each turn of a route, not just at a single turn, in order to help instruct driver navigate each turn of the route in advance (Kosaka – [0007]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights