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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 07/08/2025. Claims 1-14 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 11, and 12 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and claims 15-19 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-19 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 9-11, filed 07/08/2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Although none of the prior art of record alone appears to disclose the first and second information being in text and containing the explanation of the target control and information on situations in which to use it. In further consideration of prior art combinations, Berels in combination with Ronnang appears to disclose the limitation as amended in claim 1. Berels discloses the display visually showing certain phrases to the driver to prompt them to switch traction control on/off, Ronnang teaches the prompt could include the traction control explanations. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been updated in the final office action below and are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berels (US 2018/0345924), hereinafter Berels, in view of McQuillen et al. (US 2019/0152386), hereinafter McQuillen, and in view of Ronnang et al. (US 2020/0312172), hereinafter Ronnang.
With respect to claim 1, Berels discloses a display control device for a vehicle, comprising a processor configured to: switch permission or forbiddance of execution of target control for a predetermined function by an operation of an occupant; ([0021] “when the driver indicates to disable the traction control system, the mobility detector 116 disables the traction control system… when the driver indicates that the traction control system is to be enabled, the mobility detector 116 enables the traction control system.”)
acquire a permission status indicating permission or forbiddance of the execution of the target control; ([0020] “To determine when the vehicle 100 is likely stuck, the mobility detector 116 uses…(iii) the state of the traction control system (e.g., active, inactive)”)
recognize a condition of the vehicle based on a detection result from an internal sensor configured to detect the condition of the vehicle; ([0020-0021] “To determine when the vehicle 100 is likely stuck, the mobility detector 116 uses (i) measurements from the wheel speed sensors 106”)
determine whether to propose a first operation or a second operation to the occupant based on the permission status and the condition of the vehicle, the first operation being an operation for forbidding the execution of the target control in which the permission status indicates permission in response to an input operation from a first button, the second operation being an operation for permitting the execution of the target control in which the permission status indicates forbiddance in response to an input from a second button; ([0021] “In some examples, after determining that the vehicle 100 is likely stuck, the mobility detector 116 visually and/or audibly prompts the driver about disabling the traction control system… When the speed of the vehicle 100 is greater than a first threshold speed (e.g., ten mph (sixteen kph)), the mobility monitor prompts the driver about enabling the traction control system.” [0028] “the mobility detector 116 may display a window with “Are you stuck?” In such an example, if the driver presses “yes,” the mobility detector 116 may display a window with “Turning off traction control might help get unstuck. Would you like traction control turned off?” Note: Fig. 3 shows that the responses to each question can be yes or no, the indication that the driver presses “yes” suggests that at least two buttons exist, “yes” and “no”.)
display first information related to the first operation on a display unit provided in the vehicle when the processor determines to propose the first operation to the occupant, or display second information related to the second operation on the display unit when the processor determines to propose the second operation to the occupant; ([0021] “In some examples, after determining that the vehicle 100 is likely stuck, the mobility detector 116 visually and/or audibly prompts the driver about disabling the traction control system.” [0018] “The infotainment system provides a human machine interface (HMI) on which the traction control module 102 prompts the user to enable and disable the traction control system.”)
determine whether the processor received an input operation from the first button or the second button, changes the permission status when the processor determines that the processor receives the input operation, and control the vehicle based on the changed permission status; ([0028] “For example, the mobility detector 116 may display a window with “Are you stuck?” In such an example, if the driver presses “yes,” the mobility detector 116 may display a window with “Turning off traction control might help get unstuck. Would you like traction control turned off?” At block 306, determines whether to disable the traction control system. If the driver indicates to disable the traction control system, the method… disables the traction control system.” [0029-0030] “When the driver indicates to enable the traction control system, the method… enables the traction control system.”)
and the first information and the second information are displayed in text. (see at least [0028-0029] “the mobility detector 116 may display a window with “Turning off traction control might help get unstuck. Would you like traction control turned off?”… may display a window with “You appear to be unstuck. Would you like to turn on the traction control?”)
Berels discloses a prompt for a user to engage or disengage traction control on a display, but does not explicitly disclose an inquiry to stop display of the prompt.
However, McQuillen teaches and display the second information and a notification stop inquiry to stop display of the second information. ([0022] “a second option button 186 b “Cancel” to dismiss at least one of the first and second messages 184 a, 184 b from the display interfaces 182 a, 182 b… a fourth option button 186 d “Later” to learn about the under-utilized feature at a later time, and a fifth option button 186 e “Don't show me this again” to dismiss the messages 182 from the display interfaces 182 a, 182 b.”)
As both pertain to displaying prompts to a user of a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Berels to include the above limitations disclosed in McQuillen, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the user with messages may include option buttons to use the feature immediately or to dismiss the message, see McQuillen [0022].
Berels discloses a prompt for a user to engage or disengage traction control with a description of the benefit on a display in text, but does not explicitly disclose an explanation of the target control or information of when the target control should or should not be used.
However, Ronnang teaches the first information comprises information on a situation in which the permission status of the target control should be forbidden, and the second information comprises: (i) an explanation of the target control, and (ii) information on a situation in which the permission status of the target control should be permitted, ([0042] “vehicle sensor 107 can provide data indicating that vehicle 120 navigating a sharp turn that can… be a context for presentation… explanations of the operation of the traction control system, benefits of this system in vehicle 120” [0048] “in between the two example conclusions detailed above (media content items welcome or unwelcome) there are a variety of modifications to the type, timing, and content of the media items presented.” [0130] “output the selected media content item, e.g., the audio media content item can by output (e.g., by media component 256 using speaker 308, while feature lights 309 illuminate the buttons to activate traction control.”)
As both pertain to displaying prompts to a user of a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the prompts of Berels to include the above limitations disclosed in Ronnang, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the drivers with information needed to address complex immediate conditions by providing information on identification and use of vehicle features that can be used to adapt to conditions, see Ronnang [0003].
With respect to claim 5, Berels discloses the target control is traction control; ([0001] “The present disclosure generally relates to a vehicle motive control systems and, more specifically, a traction and stability control system.”)
the internal sensor includes a driving wheel speed sensor configured to detect a driving wheel speed of a driving wheel; ([0014] “The wheel speed sensors 106 are mounted on at least the drive wheels 104 of the vehicle 100.”)
the processor is configured to determine to propose the first operation for the traction control to the occupant when an idling condition related to the traction control is satisfied based on a detection result from the driving wheel speed sensor, ([0019] “The traction control module 102 includes hardware and firmware to detect when one or more wheels 104 lose traction which is indicative of wheel slip.” [0021] “In some examples, after determining that the vehicle 100 is likely stuck, the mobility detector 116 visually and/or audibly prompts the driver about disabling the traction control system.”)
and display the first information on the traction control on the display unit when the processor determines to propose the first operation to the occupant. ([0021] “In some examples, after determining that the vehicle 100 is likely stuck, the mobility detector 116 visually and/or audibly prompts the driver about disabling the traction control system.” [0018] “The infotainment system provides a human machine interface (HMI) on which the traction control module 102 prompts the user to enable and disable the traction control system.”)
With respect to claim 9, Berels discloses a vehicle display device comprising:
the display control device according to claim 1; and the display unit to be controlled by the display control device. ([0027] “The vehicle data bus 202 communicatively couples the traction control module 102… and/or the infotainment head unit 114”)
With respect to claim 10, Berels discloses a vehicle comprising the vehicle display device according to claim 9. ([0013] “In the illustrated example the vehicle 100 includes the traction control module 102…and an infotainment head unit 114.”)
With respect to claims 11 and 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claims 11 and 12 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claims 11 and 12 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to claim 13, Berels discloses the processor is configured to determine to propose the second operation to the occupant when the processor determines that the vehicle is stopped. ([0020-0021] “when the speed of the vehicle 100 is below a threshold, the mobility detector 116 determines that the vehicle is likely stuck… because at least one of the wheels 104 lost traction (hence the traction control system is active) and the speed of the vehicle 100 is indicative that the vehicle 100 is not substantially moving (e.g. more than two or three feet, etc.)… after determining that the vehicle 100 is likely stuck, the mobility detector 116 visually and/or audibly prompts the driver about disabling the traction control system.” Note: The threshold is set to account for drift in the coordinates measured by the GPS.)
With respect to claim 14, Berels discloses the processor is configured to determine to propose the second operation to the occupant when the processor determines that a longitudinal gradient of the stopped vehicle is equal to or larger than a gradient threshold. ([0002] “when the vehicle is stuck in the snow at the bottom of the hill, the traction control system limits the torque to the wheels to prevent them from spinning.” [0012] “In some examples, upon detecting that the vehicle is likely stuck, the traction control module provides steps to disable the traction control system.” Note: The indication of a bottom of a hill means the gradient is greater than a threshold of zero.)
With respect to claim 15, Berels discloses the first information further comprises information on how to change the permission status of the target control, (see at least [0028] “the mobility detector 116 may display a window with “Turning off traction control might help get unstuck. Would you like traction control turned off?” At block 306, determines whether to disable the traction control system. If the driver indicates to disable the traction control system… the mobility detector 116 disables the traction control system.”)
and the second information further comprises the information on how to change the permission status of the target control. (see at least [0029-0030] “the mobility detector 116 may display a window with “You appear to be unstuck. Would you like to turn on the traction control?” At block 314, the mobility detector 116 determines whether to enable the traction control system. When the driver indicates to enable the traction control system… At block 320, the mobility detector 116 enables the traction control system.”)
With respect to claims 16 and 17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 15, and it has been determined that claims 16 and 17 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 15; therefore, claims 16 and 17 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 15.
With respect to claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 13, and it has been determined that claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 13; therefore, claim 18 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 13.
With respect to claim 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 14, and it has been determined that claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 14; therefore, claim 19 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 14.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berels in view of McQuillen and Ronnang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2018115769), hereinafter Tanaka.
With respect to claim 2, Berels discloses the processor is configured to determine whether to propose the first operation for the first control to the occupant, and display the first information on the first control on the display unit when the processor determines to propose the first operation to the occupant. (Berels – [0021] “In some examples, after determining that the vehicle 100 is likely stuck, the mobility detector 116 visually and/or audibly prompts the driver about disabling the traction control system” [0018] “The infotainment system provides a human machine interface (HMI) on which the traction control module 102 prompts the user to enable and disable the traction control system.”)
Berels discloses a prompt for a user to engage or disengage traction control on a display, but does not explicitly disclose the traction setting upon starting the vehicle.
However, Tanaka teaches the target control includes first control in which the permission status is automatically set to permission when the vehicle is powered ON; ([0071] “Therefore, even if the control mode was the MAX mode the previous time the start switch 43 was turned off, the control mode will be set to the traction control mode the next time the start switch 43 is turned on.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Berels to include the above limitations disclosed in Tanaka, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to establish whether the traction control is enabled upon start of the vehicle so the operator doesn’t forget to make the change if needed, see Tanaka [0006].
With respect to claim 3, Berels discloses the processor is configured to determine whether to propose the second operation for the second control to the occupant, and display the second information on the second control on the display unit when the processor determines to propose the second operation to the occupant. (Berels – [0021] “When the speed of the vehicle 100 is greater than a first threshold speed (e.g., ten mph (sixteen kph)), the mobility monitor prompts the driver about enabling the traction control system.”)
Berels discloses a prompt for a user to engage or disengage traction control on a display, but does not explicitly disclose the traction setting upon starting the vehicle.
However, Tanaka teaches the target control includes second control in which the permission status is automatically set to forbiddance when the vehicle is powered ON; ([0010] “In the third step, a selection hold function is set so that the control mode selected the previous time the start switch was turned off is held when the vehicle is started.” Note: It is understood that if the traction control were turned off in previous setting this would hold that setting.)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Berels to include the above limitations disclosed in Tanaka, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to establish whether the traction control is enabled upon start of the vehicle so the operator doesn’t forget to make the change if needed, see Tanaka [0006].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berels in view of McQuillen and Tanaka and Ronnang as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Fujioka (US 5,455,771), hereinafter Fujioka.
With respect to claim 4, Berels discloses the processor is configured to determine to propose the second operation to the occupant when ([0028-0029] “At Block 308, the mobility detector 116 disables the traction control system…At block 310, the mobility detector 116 waits until the speed of the vehicle 100 as determined by the GPS receiver 112 satisfies (e.g., is greater than) a first speed threshold. At block 312, the mobility detector 116 prompts the driver about enabling the traction control system.”)
Berels discloses using a speed parameter after traction control has been disabled to determine whether to enable the traction control, but does not explicitly disclose using a predetermined time the traction control has been disabled to determine whether to prompt the driver.
However, Fujioka teaches using a predetermined time of disabled traction control (Fujioka – (col. 4 lines 52-59) “Once the counter reaches the trigger threshold and traction control is prohibited…traction control is prohibited when the counted period exceeds approximately 20 seconds, and traction control remains prohibited for approximately 80 seconds thereafter.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Berels to include the above limitations disclosed in Fujioka, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the traction control was engaged after a predetermined period regardless of the vehicle speed to provide safety to the driver.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berels in view of McQuillen and Ronnang as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of James et al. (US 2013/0325255), hereinafter James.
With respect to claim 6, Berels discloses a prompt for a user to engage or disengage traction control on a display, but does not explicitly disclose an accelerator sensor.
However, James teaches the internal sensor includes a rolling wheel speed sensor configured to detect a rolling wheel speed of a rolling wheel, and an accelerator sensor configured to detect an accelerator operation amount; ([0020] “Wheel speed sensors 32 a-32 d may provide wheel speed signals that provide information for traction control among other purposes.” [0021] “Dynamic sensors may include a yaw rate sensor 36, a lateral acceleration sensor 38, and a longitudinal acceleration sensor 40.”)
and the processor is configured to determine to propose the first operation for the traction control to the occupant when the rolling wheel speed is equal to or lower than a predetermined rolling wheel speed threshold and the accelerator operation amount is equal to or larger than a predetermined operation amount threshold. ([0026] “In the event the traction control is enabled automatically, but the vehicle speed and acceleration are at a predetermined threshold limit, the traction control system 30 will transmit a bus network signal to the instrument cluster display so that the cluster will display the Traction Control ON/OFF screen at the display module 50.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Berels to include the above limitations disclosed in James, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a different measurement for slip by sensing no movement of the vehicle even though the accelerator pedal is being pressed, see James [0033].
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berels in view of McQuillen and Ronnang as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Yamashita (JP H05229417), hereinafter Yamashita.
With respect to claim 7, Berels discloses the driving wheel speed sensor is configured to detect the driving wheel speeds of the driving wheels on right and left; ([0019] “The traction control system of the traction control module 102 uses the wheel speed sensors 106 to determine when a wheel 104 is spinning faster than the other wheels 104.”)
Berels discloses the limitations of the wheel speed sensors used to determine whether to prompt the driver, but does not explicitly disclose a left and right ratio to determine whether the vehicle is experiencing slip.
However, Yamashita teaches and the processor is configured to determine not to propose the first operation to the occupant when a right-and-left ratio of the driving wheel speeds is higher than a predetermined right-and-left ratio threshold. (“when the operation switch is turned ON by the driver and predetermined slip control conditions are established, the engine control means and brake control means are operated to control the slip ratio of the drive wheels.” [0082] “where it is determined from the difference in slip ratio between the left and right drive wheels”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Berels to include the above limitations disclosed in Yamashita, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method of establishing an appropriate control given the amount of slip in the case of a split road, see Yamashita [0003, 0020].
With respect to claim 8, Berels discloses a prompt for a user to engage or disengage traction control on a display, but does not explicitly disclose enabling traction control if slipping does not occur for a predetermined period.
However, Yamashita teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine to propose the second operation to the occupant when execution of the traction control is forbidden in response to the first operation and the idling condition is not satisfied continuously for a predetermined period. ([0040] “Engine control is stopped when the accelerator is fully closed or when the actual slip value remains at the control continuation threshold SC (smaller than the first target value) for a predetermined period of time or more (t6 to t7 in FIG. 4).”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Berels to include the above limitations disclosed in Yamashita, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method of establishing an appropriate control given the amount of slip over a period of time, see Yamashita [0003].
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 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 Mehdizadeh can be reached on (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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669