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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on December 2, 2025. Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-27 are pending. Claims 6 and 14-27 are withdrawn.
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 Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 2, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed December 2, 2025 have been considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Behring’s configuration is different in which positions of other vehicles are taken into consideration so that the vehicles are displayed as a cluster is employed (Applicant’s Response, pg. 23), the examiner agrees.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Behring’s configuration is different in which positions of other vehicles are taken into consideration so that the feature of excluding the tail vehicle from the cluster is employed (Applicant’s Response, pg. 23), it is noted that the combination of Hirotaka and Behring teaches this limitation as Hirotaka teaches displaying vehicles as a group ([0043-0044]) and Behring teaches displaying the vehicle that is closest to the ego vehicle is the most important vehicle to show. Therefore, the last vehicle in the grouping from Hirotaka would be displayed individually as that vehicle is the most important to the driver.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, line 8, "the individually displayed other vehicle" should read "the individually displayed other vehicle in the subject vehicle lane".
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10, and 12-13 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.
In claim 1, lines 21-28, the limitation “display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster and exclude an other vehicle of the plurality of other vehicles on a tail…” in combination with the limitation “display, as the first transition information, a predetermined other vehicle area in the periphery of the vehicle” (lines 17-18) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how to display two different transition information on the same display. In addition, the specification does not disclose or make clear how the two inventions would be combined as “the first transition information” is the first embodiment ([0103] and Fig. 3) and “the second transition information” is the fifth embodiment ([0131] and Fig. 21).
In claim 2, lines 17-25, the limitation “display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster and to exclude an other vehicle of the plurality of other vehicles on a tail…” in combination with the limitation “display, as the first transition information, a possible area where the autonomous driving is possible” (lines 16-17) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how to display two different transition information on the same display. In addition, the specification does not disclose or make clear how the two inventions would be combined as “the first transition information” is the second embodiment ([0114] and Fig. 9) and “the second transition information” is the fifth embodiment ([0131] and Fig. 21).
In claim 4, lines 17-22, the limitation “display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster and exclude an other vehicle of the plurality of other vehicles on a tail…” in combination with the limitation “display, as the first transition information, an impossible area where the autonomous driving is impossible” (lines 16-17). In addition, the specification does not disclose or make clear how the two inventions would be combined as “the first transition information” is the sixth embodiment ([0133] and Fig. 23) and “the second transition information” is the fifth embodiment ([0131] and Fig. 21).
In claim 5, lines 3-6, the limitation “display, as third transition information, a possible area where the autonomous driving is possible…” in combination with the limitations “display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster and exclude an other vehicle of the plurality of other vehicles on a tail…” (claim 1, lines 21-28) and “display, as the first transition information, a predetermined other vehicle area in the periphery of the vehicle” (claim 1, lines 17-18) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how to display three different transition information on the same display. In addition, the specification does not disclose or make clear how the three inventions would be combined as “the first transition information” is the first embodiment ([0103] and Fig. 3), “the second transition information” is the fifth embodiment ([0131] and Fig. 21), and the “third transition information” is the second embodiment ([0114] and Fig. 9).
In claim 8, lines 3-7, the limitation “display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles forming the traffic congestion, in a display form different from a normal display form…” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is being done in place of the second transition information previously claimed in claim 1 (lines 21-28) or in addition.
In claim 8, lines 3-7, the limitation “display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles forming the traffic congestion, in a display form different from a normal display form…” in combination with the limitations “display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster and exclude an other vehicle of the plurality of other vehicles on a tail…” (claim 1, lines 21-28) and “display, as the first transition information, a predetermined other vehicle area in the periphery of the vehicle” (lines 17-18) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how to display three different transition information on the same display. In addition, the specification does not disclose or make clear how the three inventions would be combined as “the first transition information” is the first embodiment ([0103] and Fig. 3), “the second transition information” from claim 1 is the fifth embodiment ([0131] and Fig. 21), and “the second transition information” from claim 8 is the fifteenth embodiment ([0156] and Fig. 38).
In claim 10, lines 3-6, the limitation “display, as third transition information, an impossible area where the autonomous driving is impossible…” in combination with the limitations “display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster and exclude an other vehicle of the plurality of other vehicles on a tail…” (claim 1, lines 21-28) and “display, as the first transition information, a predetermined other vehicle area in the periphery of the vehicle” (claim 1, lines 17-18) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how to display three different transition information on the same display. In addition, the specification does not disclose or make clear how the three inventions would be combined as “the first transition information” is the first embodiment ([0103] and Fig. 3), “the second transition information” is the fifth embodiment ([0131] and Fig. 21), and the “third transition information” is the sixth embodiment ([0133] and Fig. 23).
In claim 12, lines 6-9, the limitation “individually display the other vehicle in the subject vehicle lane, and display the other vehicle in the other vehicle lane as the cluster, the individually displayed other vehicle is displayed at a position where the cluster does not exist” in combination with the limitations “display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster and exclude an other vehicle of the plurality of other vehicles on a tail…” (claim 1, lines 21-28) and “display, as the first transition information, a predetermined other vehicle area in the periphery of the vehicle” (claim 1, lines 17-18) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how to display three different transition information on the same display. In addition, the specification does not disclose or make clear how the three inventions would be combined as “the first transition information” is the first embodiment ([0103] and Fig. 3), “the second transition information” is the fifth embodiment ([0131] and Fig. 21), and the third transition information is the seventh embodiment ([0135] and Fig. 25).
In claim 13, lines 4-7, the limitation “individually display an other vehicle adjacent to the vehicle among the plurality of other vehicles, and display, as the cluster, the plurality of other vehicles excluding the other vehicle adjacent to the vehicle” in combination with the limitations “display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster and exclude an other vehicle of the plurality of other vehicles on a tail…” (claim 1, lines 21-28) and “display, as the first transition information, a predetermined other vehicle area in the periphery of the vehicle” (claim 1, lines 17-18) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how to display three different transition information on the same display. In addition, the specification does not disclose or make clear how the three inventions would be combined as “the first transition information” is the first embodiment ([0103] and Fig. 3), “the second transition information” is the fifth embodiment ([0131] and Fig. 21), and the third transition information is the seventh embodiment ([0135] and Fig. 25).
Claims 5, 7-8, 10, and 12-13 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
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, 7, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullinane (US 2014/0330478) in view of Hirotaka (JP 2017182586), Behring (US 2022/0315027), Govindan (US 2020/0393847), and Wang (US 2017/0212525).
Regarding claim 1, Cullinane discloses a vehicle display apparatus comprising:
a display configured to display traveling information of a vehicle (Cullinane, [0036] regarding a navigation display);
a processor and memory configured to acquire position information of the vehicle and traffic congestion information related to a plurality of other vehicles that travel in a periphery of the vehicle (Cullinane, [0039] regarding a geographic position component & [0064] regarding determining that the vehicle is in dense traffic conditions when it is surrounded by other vehicles); and
a display controller configured to:
detect an occurrence of traffic congestion from the position information and the traffic congestion information related to the plurality of other vehicles (Cullinane, [0064] regarding determining that the vehicle is in dense traffic conditions when it is surrounded by other vehicles),
upon detecting the occurrence, determine a period from detection of the occurrence to a time when a predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied (Cullinane, [0088] regarding the computer assessing the status of the vehicle's current environment, the vehicle's future environment, the vehicle, and the driver before switching from manual to autonomous driving & [0073] regarding the assessments being performed in any order. The computer will have conducted the assessment of the vehicle's current environment (i.e., detect dense traffic) and then conduct the rest of the assessments. Each of these assessments has a period of time associated with how long it will take to conduct, then after all assessments have been done autonomous driving is possible.), and
display, on the display, transition information related to a transition to autonomous driving by using an image of at least one of a traveling road or the plurality of other vehicles during the determined period (Cullinane, Fig. 9 regarding an image of the vehicle traveling in one of four traveling lanes, [0064] regarding conditions required to switch from manual to autonomous driving (e.g., confirm location, determine if the vehicle is in an autodrive zone or lane, determine if there is dense traffic conditions) & [0085] regarding switching from manual to autonomous driving once the identified problem conditions have been corrected), wherein:
the display controller is configured to:
determine whether autonomous driving is possible when at least one of the plurality of other vehicles enters the other vehicle area (Cullinane, [0064] regarding one of the conditions required to switch from manual to autonomous driving including determining whether the vehicle is surrounded by or boxed in by other vehicles),
when the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied, the processor executes autonomous driving (Cullinane, [0088] regarding switching from manual to autonomous driving mode if there are no problem conditions), and
the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is that a vehicles speed of the vehicle is 10 km/hour or less (Cullinane, [0086] regarding making sure the vehicle is not moving too fast. It is a design choice to choose 10 km/hour or less.).
Cullinane does not explicitly disclose a display controller configured to:
display, on the display, first and second transition information, wherein:
the display controller is configured to:
display, as the first transition information, a predetermined other vehicle area in the periphery of the vehicle,
display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster and exclude an other vehicle of the plurality of other vehicles on a tail, the other vehicle on the tail being, among the plurality of other vehicles existing in front of the vehicle, closest to the vehicle in a lane of the traveling road in a traveling direction of the vehicle, and, within the cluster, a vehicle image indicating at least one of the plurality of other vehicles is not displayed, and
display the other vehicle on the tail, and
when the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied, the processor executes autonomous driving at a predetermined autonomous driving level that control traveling of the vehicle to follow at least one of the plurality of other vehicles and does not require periphery monitoring duty.
Hirotaka teaches wherein:
the display controller is configured to:
display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster (Hirotaka, Fig. 6 & [0050] regarding displaying the other vehicles as a group and not displaying the individual vehicles within the group).
Cullinane and Hirotaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle display. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane to incorporate displaying other vehicles as a group, as disclosed by Hirotaka, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of reducing the amount of information the driver has to process.
Behring teaches wherein:
the display controller is configured to:
display, as the first transition information, a predetermined other vehicle area in the periphery of the vehicle (Behring, Fig. 5 & [0214] regarding boundary areas surrounding the vehicle).
Behring additionally teaches displaying the vehicle that are arranged further back in the sectors in front of the ego vehicle as the vehicles in the direct surrounding next to the ego vehicle and in front of the ego vehicle are particularly relevant to the driving task ([0182 & 0189]).
Cullinane and Behring are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle display. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane, as modified, to show the vehicles in the cluster closest to the ego vehicle individually, as disclosed by Behring, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of showing the most important vehicles around the vehicle.
Cullinane, as modified, teaches a display controller configured to:
display, on the display, first and second transition information, wherein:
the display controller is configured to:
display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster and exclude an other vehicle of the plurality of other vehicles on a tail, the other vehicle on the tail being, among the plurality of other vehicles existing in front of the vehicle, closest to the vehicle in a lane of the traveling road in a traveling direction of the vehicle, and, within the cluster, a vehicle image indicating at least one of the plurality of other vehicles is not displayed, and
display the other vehicle on the tail (Hirotaka, Fig. 6 & [0050] regarding displaying the other vehicles as a group and not displaying the individual vehicles within the group) (Behring, [0182] regarding the vehicles in the direct surroundings next to and in front of the ego vehicle being particularly relevant to the driving task & [0189] regarding selecting the vehicle that is arranged furthest back in the sectors in front of the ego vehicle to display).
Govindan teaches when the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied, the processor executes autonomous driving at a predetermined autonomous driving level that control traveling of the vehicle to follow at least one of the plurality of other vehicles (Govindan, [0014] regarding an autonomous vehicle following a leader vehicle & [0093] regarding the follower vehicle being level four or higher).
Cullinane and Govindan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of autonomous vehicle control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane, as modified, to incorporate controlling the vehicle to follow an other vehicle at autonomous level 4, as disclosed by Govindan, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing the driver to relax while sitting in traffic.
Wang teaches the level four autonomous driving requires no driver involvement (i.e., the driver does not have to monitor the vehicle surroundings) ([0053]).
Cullinane and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of autonomous vehicle control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane, as modified, to incorporate not requiring the driver to observe their surroundings at level 4 autonomous driving, as disclosed by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing the driver to relax while sitting in traffic.
Cullinane, as modified, teaches when the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied, the processor executes autonomous driving at a predetermined autonomous driving level that control traveling of the vehicle to follow at least one of the plurality of other vehicles and does not require periphery monitoring duty.
Regarding claim 2, Cullinane discloses a vehicle display apparatus comprising:
a display configured to display traveling information of a vehicle (Cullinane, [0036] regarding a navigation display);
a processor and memory configured to acquire position information of the vehicle and traffic congestion information related to a plurality of other vehicles that travel in a periphery of the vehicle (Cullinane, [0039] regarding a geographic position component & [0064] regarding determining that the vehicle is in dense traffic conditions when it is surrounded by other vehicles); and
a display controller configured to:
detect an occurrence of traffic congestion from the position information and the traffic congestion information related to the plurality of other vehicles (Cullinane, [0064] regarding determining that the vehicle is in dense traffic conditions when it is surrounded by other vehicles),
upon detecting the occurrence, determine a period from detection of the occurrence to a time when a predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied (Cullinane, [0088] regarding the computer assessing the status of the vehicle's current environment, the vehicle's future environment, the vehicle, and the driver before switching from manual to autonomous driving & [0073] regarding the assessments being performed in any order. The computer will have conducted the assessment of the vehicle's current environment (i.e., detect dense traffic) and then conduct the rest of the assessments. Each of these assessments has a period of time associated with how long it will take to conduct, then after all assessments have been done autonomous driving is possible.), and
display, on the display, transition information related to a transition to autonomous driving by using an image of at least one of a traveling road or the plurality of other vehicles during the determined period (Cullinane, Fig. 9 regarding an image of the vehicle traveling in one of four traveling lanes, [0064] regarding conditions required to switch from manual to autonomous driving (e.g., confirm location, determine if the vehicle is in an autodrive zone or lane, determine if there is dense traffic conditions) & [0085] regarding switching from manual to autonomous driving once the identified problem conditions have been corrected),
wherein:
the display controller is configured to display, as the first transition information, a possible area where the autonomous driving is possible (Cullinane, Fig. 8 regarding green lanes representing an autodrive lane),
when the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied, the processor executes autonomous driving (Cullinane, [0088] regarding switching from manual to autonomous driving mode if there are no problem conditions), and
the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is that a vehicles speed of the vehicle is 10 km/hour or less (Cullinane, [0086] regarding making sure the vehicle is not moving too fast. It is a design choice to choose 10 km/hour or less.).
Cullinane does not explicitly disclose a display controller configured to:
display, on the display, first and second transition information, wherein
the display controller is configured to display, as the first transition information, a possible area where the autonomous driving is possible and display, to display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster and to exclude an other vehicle of the plurality of other vehicles on a tail, and to display the other vehicle on the tail, the other vehicle on the tail being, among the plurality of other vehicles existing in front of the vehicle, closest to the vehicle in a lane of the traveling road in a traveling direction of the vehicle, the possible area being displayed at a position on the traveling road where the plurality of the other vehicles do not exist, and within the cluster, a vehicle image indicating at least one of the plurality of other vehicles is not displayed, and
when the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied, the processor executes autonomous driving at a predetermined autonomous driving level that control traveling of the vehicle to follow at least one of the plurality of other vehicles and does not require periphery monitoring duty.
Hirotaka teaches wherein:
the display controller is configured to:
display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster (Hirotaka, Fig. 6 & [0050] regarding displaying the other vehicles as a group and not displaying the individual vehicles within the group).
Cullinane and Hirotaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle display. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane to incorporate displaying other vehicles as a group, as disclosed by Hirotaka, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of reducing the amount of information the driver has to process.
Behring teaches displaying the vehicle that are arranged further back in the sectors in front of the ego vehicle as the vehicles in the direct surrounding next to the ego vehicle and in front of the ego vehicle are particularly relevant to the driving task ([0182 & 0189]).
Cullinane and Behring are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle display. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane, as modified, to show the vehicles in the cluster closest to the ego vehicle individually, as disclosed by Behring, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of showing the most important vehicles around the vehicle.
Cullinane, as modified, teaches a display controller configured to:
display, on the display, first and second transition information, wherein
the display controller is configured to display, as the first transition information, a possible area where the autonomous driving is possible, the possible area being displayed at a position on the traveling road where the plurality of other vehicles do not exist (The vehicle clusters would be superimposed onto the display of the traffic lanes in Fig. 8, thus displaying the surrounding vehicles within their respective lanes. The autodrive lanes would still be highlighted green to indicate that autonomous driving is possible within these lanes and the highlighted portion of the lane would include where the vehicle that have been superimposed into their respective lanes do not exist. See Figure A below), and
wherein
the display controller is configured to display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster and exclude an other vehicle of the plurality of other vehicles on a tail, and to display the other vehicle on the tail, the other vehicle on the tail being, among the plurality of other vehicles existing in front of the vehicle, closest to the vehicle in a lane of the traveling road in a traveling direction of the vehicle, and, within the cluster, a vehicle image indicating at least one of the plurality of other vehicles is not displayed (Hirotaka, Fig. 6 & [0050] regarding displaying the other vehicles as a group and not displaying the individual vehicles within the group) (Behring, [0182] regarding the vehicles in the direct surroundings next to and in front of the ego vehicle being particularly relevant to the driving task & [0189] regarding selecting the vehicle that is arranged furthest back in the sectors in front of the ego vehicle to display).
PNG
media_image1.png
143
401
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Modified portion of figure 8 of Cullinane
Govindan teaches when the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied, the processor executes autonomous driving at a predetermined autonomous driving level that control traveling of the vehicle to follow at least one of the plurality of other vehicles (Govindan, [0014] regarding an autonomous vehicle following a leader vehicle & [0093] regarding the follower vehicle being level four or higher).
Cullinane and Govindan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of autonomous vehicle control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane, as modified, to incorporate controlling the vehicle to follow an other vehicle at autonomous level 4, as disclosed by Govindan, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing the driver to relax while sitting in traffic.
Wang teaches the level four autonomous driving requires no driver involvement (i.e., the driver does not have to monitor the vehicle surroundings) ([0053]).
Cullinane and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of autonomous vehicle control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane, as modified, to incorporate not requiring the driver to observe their surroundings at level 4 autonomous driving, as disclosed by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing the driver to relax while sitting in traffic.
Cullinane, as modified, teaches when the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied, the processor executes autonomous driving at a predetermined autonomous driving level that control traveling of the vehicle to follow at least one of the plurality of other vehicles and does not require periphery monitoring duty.
Regarding claim 3, Cullinane discloses a vehicle display apparatus comprising:
a display configured to display traveling information of a vehicle (Cullinane, [0036] regarding a navigation display);
a processor and memory configured to acquire position information of the vehicle and traffic congestion information related to a plurality of other vehicles that travel in a periphery of the vehicle (Cullinane, [0039] regarding a geographic position component & [0064] regarding determining that the vehicle is in dense traffic conditions when it is surrounded by other vehicles); and
a display controller configured to:
detect an occurrence of traffic congestion from the position information and the traffic congestion information related to the plurality of other vehicles (Cullinane, [0064] regarding determining that the vehicle is in dense traffic conditions when it is surrounded by other vehicles),
upon detecting the occurrence, determine a period from detection of the occurrence to a time when a predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied (Cullinane, [0088] regarding the computer assessing the status of the vehicle's current environment, the vehicle's future environment, the vehicle, and the driver before switching from manual to autonomous driving & [0073] regarding the assessments being performed in any order. The computer will have conducted the assessment of the vehicle's current environment (i.e., detect dense traffic) and then conduct the rest of the assessments. Each of these assessments has a period of time associated with how long it will take to conduct, then after all assessments have been done autonomous driving is possible.), and
display, on the display, transition information related to a transition to autonomous driving by using an image of at least one of a traveling road or the plurality of other vehicles during the determined period (Cullinane, Fig. 9 regarding an image of the vehicle traveling in one of four traveling lanes, [0064] regarding conditions required to switch from manual to autonomous driving (e.g., confirm location, determine if the vehicle is in an autodrive zone or lane, determine if there is dense traffic conditions) & [0085] regarding switching from manual to autonomous driving once the identified problem conditions have been corrected),
when the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied, the processor executes autonomous driving (Cullinane, [0088] regarding switching from manual to autonomous driving mode if there are no problem conditions), and
the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is that a vehicles speed of the vehicle is 10 km/hour or less (Cullinane, [0086] regarding making sure the vehicle is not moving too fast. It is a design choice to choose 10 km/hour or less.).
Cullinane does not explicitly disclose wherein:
the display controller is configured to display, as the transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster and exclude an other vehicle of the plurality of other vehicles on a tail, and to display the other vehicle on the tail, and to display the other vehicle on the tail, the other vehicle on the tail being, among the plurality of other vehicles existing in front of the vehicle, closest to the vehicle in a lane of the traveling road in a traveling direction of the vehicle, and within the cluster, a vehicle image indicating at least one of the plurality of other vehicles is not displayed, and
when the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied, the processor executes autonomous driving at a predetermined autonomous driving level that control traveling of the vehicle to follow at least one of the plurality of other vehicles and does not require periphery monitoring duty.
Hirotaka teaches wherein:
the display controller is configured to:
display, as the transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster (Hirotaka, Fig. 6 & [0050] regarding displaying the other vehicles as a group and not displaying the individual vehicles within the group).
Cullinane and Hirotaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle display. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane to incorporate displaying other vehicles as a group, as disclosed by Hirotaka, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of reducing the amount of information the driver has to process.
Behring teaches displaying the vehicle that are arranged further back in the sectors in front of the ego vehicle as the vehicles in the direct surrounding next to the ego vehicle and in front of the ego vehicle are particularly relevant to the driving task ([0182 & 0189]).
Cullinane and Behring are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle display. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane, as modified, to show the vehicles in the cluster closest to the ego vehicle individually, as disclosed by Behring, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of showing the most important vehicles around the vehicle.
Cullinane, as modified, teaches wherein:
the display controller is configured to display, as the transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster and exclude an other vehicle of the plurality of other vehicles on a tail, and to display the other vehicle on the tail, the other vehicle on the tail being, among the plurality of other vehicles existing in front of the vehicle, closest to the vehicle in a lane of the traveling road in a traveling direction of the vehicle, and, within the cluster, a vehicle image indicating at least one of the plurality of other vehicles is not displayed (Hirotaka, Fig. 6 & [0050] regarding displaying the other vehicles as a group and not displaying the individual vehicles within the group) (Behring, [0182] regarding the vehicles in the direct surroundings next to and in front of the ego vehicle being particularly relevant to the driving task & [0189] regarding selecting the vehicle that is arranged furthest back in the sectors in front of the ego vehicle to display).
Govindan teaches when the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied, the processor executes autonomous driving at a predetermined autonomous driving level that control traveling of the vehicle to follow at least one of the plurality of other vehicles (Govindan, [0014] regarding an autonomous vehicle following a leader vehicle & [0093] regarding the follower vehicle being level four or higher).
Cullinane and Govindan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of autonomous vehicle control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane, as modified, to incorporate controlling the vehicle to follow an other vehicle at autonomous level 4, as disclosed by Govindan, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing the driver to relax while sitting in traffic.
Wang teaches the level four autonomous driving requires no driver involvement (i.e., the driver does not have to monitor the vehicle surroundings) ([0053]).
Cullinane and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of autonomous vehicle control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane, as modified, to incorporate not requiring the driver to observe their surroundings at level 4 autonomous driving, as disclosed by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing the driver to relax while sitting in traffic.
Cullinane, as modified, teaches when the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied, the processor executes autonomous driving at a predetermined autonomous driving level that control traveling of the vehicle to follow at least one of the plurality of other vehicles and does not require periphery monitoring duty.
Regarding claim 4, Cullinane discloses a vehicle display apparatus comprising:
a display configured to display traveling information of a vehicle (Cullinane, [0036] regarding a navigation display);
a processor and memory configured to acquire position information of the vehicle and traffic congestion information related to a plurality of other vehicles that travel in a periphery of the vehicle (Cullinane, [0039] regarding a geographic position component & [0064] regarding determining that the vehicle is in dense traffic conditions when it is surrounded by other vehicles); and
a display controller configured to:
detect an occurrence of traffic congestion from the position information and the traffic congestion information related to the plurality of other vehicles (Cullinane, [0064] regarding determining that the vehicle is in dense traffic conditions when it is surrounded by other vehicles),
upon detecting the occurrence, determine a period from detection of the occurrence to a time when a predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied (Cullinane, [0088] regarding the computer assessing the status of the vehicle's current environment, the vehicle's future environment, the vehicle, and the driver before switching from manual to autonomous driving & [0073] regarding the assessments being performed in any order. The computer will have conducted the assessment of the vehicle's current environment (i.e., detect dense traffic) and then conduct the rest of the assessments. Each of these assessments has a period of time associated with how long it will take to conduct, then after all assessments have been done autonomous driving is possible.), and
display, on the display, transition information related to a transition to autonomous driving by using an image of at least one of a traveling road or the plurality of other vehicles during the determined period (Cullinane, Fig. 9 regarding an image of the vehicle traveling in one of four traveling lanes, [0064] regarding conditions required to switch from manual to autonomous driving (e.g., confirm location, determine if the vehicle is in an autodrive zone or lane, determine if there is dense traffic conditions) & [0085] regarding switching from manual to autonomous driving once the identified problem conditions have been corrected),
wherein:
the display controller is configured to display, as the first transition information, an impossible area where the autonomous driving is impossible (Cullinane, Fig. 8 regarding green lanes representing an autodrive lane),
when the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied, the processor executes autonomous driving (Cullinane, [0088] regarding switching from manual to autonomous driving mode if there are no problem conditions), and
the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is that a vehicles speed of the vehicle is 10 km/hour or less (Cullinane, [0086] regarding making sure the vehicle is not moving too fast. It is a design choice to choose 10 km/hour or less.).
Cullinane does not explicitly disclose a display controller configured to:
display, on the display, first and second transition information, wherein
the display controller is configured to display, as the first transition information, an impossible area where the autonomous driving is impossible and display, to display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster and to exclude an other vehicle of the plurality of other vehicles on a tail, and to display the other vehicle on the tail, the other vehicle on the tail being, among the plurality of other vehicles existing in front of the vehicle, closest to the vehicle in a lane of the traveling road in a traveling direction of the vehicle, the impossible area being displayed at a position on the traveling road where the plurality of the other vehicles do not exist, and within the cluster, a vehicle image indicating at least one of the plurality of other vehicles is not displayed, and
when the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied, the processor executes autonomous driving at a predetermined autonomous driving level that control traveling of the vehicle to follow at least one of the plurality of other vehicles and does not require periphery monitoring duty.
Hirotaka teaches wherein:
the display controller is configured to:
display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster (Hirotaka, Fig. 6 & [0050] regarding displaying the other vehicles as a group and not displaying the individual vehicles within the group).
Cullinane and Hirotaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle display. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane to incorporate displaying other vehicles as a group, as disclosed by Hirotaka, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of reducing the amount of information the driver has to process.
Behring teaches displaying the vehicle that are arranged further back in the sectors in front of the ego vehicle as the vehicles in the direct surrounding next to the ego vehicle and in front of the ego vehicle are particularly relevant to the driving task ([0182 & 0189]).
Cullinane and Behring are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle display. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane, as modified, to show the vehicles in the cluster closest to the ego vehicle individually, as disclosed by Behring, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of showing the most important vehicles around the vehicle.
Cullinane, as modified, teaches a display controller configured to:
display, on the display, first and second transition information, wherein
the display controller is configured to display, as the first transition information, an impossible area where the autonomous driving is impossible, the impossible area being displayed at a position on the traveling road where the plurality of other vehicles do not exist (The vehicle clusters would be superimposed onto the display of the traffic lanes in Fig. 8, thus displaying the surrounding vehicles within their respective lanes. The non-autodrive lanes would still not be highlighted green to indicate that autonomous driving is not possible within these lanes and the non-highlighted portion of the lane would include where the vehicle that have been superimposed into their respective lanes do not exist. See Figure B below), and
wherein
the display controller is configured to display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles that form the traffic congestion as a cluster and exclude an other vehicle of the plurality of other vehicles on a tail, and to display the other vehicle on the tail, the other vehicle on the tail being, among the plurality of other vehicles existing in front of the vehicle, closest to the vehicle in a lane of the traveling road in a traveling direction of the vehicle, and, within the cluster, a vehicle image indicating at least one of the plurality of other vehicles is not displayed (Hirotaka, Fig. 6 & [0050] regarding displaying the other vehicles as a group and not displaying the individual vehicles within the group) (Behring, [0182] regarding the vehicles in the direct surroundings next to and in front of the ego vehicle being particularly relevant to the driving task & [0189] regarding selecting the vehicle that is arranged furthest back in the sectors in front of the ego vehicle to display).
Govindan teaches when the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied, the processor executes autonomous driving at a predetermined autonomous driving level that control traveling of the vehicle to follow at least one of the plurality of other vehicles (Govindan, [0014] regarding an autonomous vehicle following a leader vehicle & [0093] regarding the follower vehicle being level four or higher).
Cullinane and Govindan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of autonomous vehicle control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane, as modified, to incorporate controlling the vehicle to follow an other vehicle at autonomous level 4, as disclosed by Govindan, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing the driver to relax while sitting in traffic.
Wang teaches the level four autonomous driving requires no driver involvement (i.e., the driver does not have to monitor the vehicle surroundings) ([0053]).
Cullinane and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of autonomous vehicle control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane, as modified, to incorporate not requiring the driver to observe their surroundings at level 4 autonomous driving, as disclosed by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing the driver to relax while sitting in traffic.
Cullinane, as modified, teaches when the predetermined autonomous driving possible condition is satisfied, the processor executes autonomous driving at a predetermined autonomous driving level that control traveling of the vehicle to follow at least one of the plurality of other vehicles and does not require periphery monitoring duty.
PNG
media_image2.png
143
401
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B: Modified portion of figure 8 of Cullinane
Regarding claim 5, Cullinane in view of Hirotaka, Behring, Govindan, and Wang teaches the vehicle display apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Cullinane, as modified, further teaches wherein:
the display controller is configured to display, as third transition information, a possible area where the autonomous driving is possible, the possible area being displayed at a position on the traveling road where the plurality of the other vehicles do not exist (The vehicle clusters would be superimposed onto the display of the traffic lanes in Fig. 8, thus displaying the surrounding vehicles within their respective lanes. The autodrive lanes would still be highlighted green to indicate that autonomous driving is possible within these lanes and the highlighted portion of the lane would include where the vehicle that have been superimposed into their respective lanes do not exist. See figure A above).
Regarding claim 7, Cullinane in view of Hirotaka, Behring, Govindan, and Wang teaches the vehicle display apparatus as claimed in claim 2, wherein:
the possible area is a traveling vehicle lane to follow the other vehicle (Cullinane, Fig. 8 regarding green lanes representing an autodrive lane & Fig. 9 regarding increasing following distance).
Regarding claim 10, Cullinane in view of Hirotaka, Behring, Govindan, and Wang teaches the vehicle display apparatus as claimed in 1. Cullinane, as modified, further teaches wherein:
the display controller is configured to display, as third transition information, an impossible area where the autonomous driving is impossible, the impossible area being displayed at a position on the traveling road where the plurality of the other vehicles do not exist (The vehicle clusters would be superimposed onto the display of the traffic lanes in Fig. 8, thus displaying the surrounding vehicles within their respective lanes. The non-autodrive lanes would still not be highlighted green to indicate that autonomous driving is not possible within these lanes and the non-highlighted portion of the lane would include where the vehicle that have been superimposed into their respective lanes do not exist. See figure B above).
Regarding claim 12, Cullinane in view of Hirotaka, Behring, Govindan, and Wang teaches the vehicle display apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Hirotaka further teaches wherein:
the plurality of other vehicles includes an other vehicle in a subject vehicle lane and an other vehicle in an other vehicle lane (Hirotaka, Fig. 4 regarding vehicles in the ego vehicle lane and adjacent lanes), and
the display controller is configured to individually display the other vehicle in the subject vehicle lane, and
display the other vehicle in the other vehicle lane as the cluster (Hirotaka, [0046] regarding displaying multiple other vehicles as individual vehicles (V1 to V5) and as a group (G1 and G2)).
Cullinane and Hirotaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle display. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane, as modified, to incorporate displaying other vehicles individually and a group, as disclosed by Hirotaka, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing the driver to see vehicles that are close in proximity.
Behring further teaches the individually displayed other vehicle is displayed at a position where the cluster does not exist (Behring, [0182] regarding the vehicles in the directly in front of the ego vehicle being particularly relevant to the driving task & [0189] regarding selecting the vehicle that is arranged furthest back in the sector in front of the ego vehicle to display. By displaying the vehicle closest to the ego vehicle individually, the vehicle in front of the ego vehicle within the ego vehicle lane will be displayed individually, and not within the group.).
Cullinane and Behring are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle display. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane, as modified, to show the vehicles in the cluster closest to the ego vehicle individually, as disclosed by Behring, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of showing the most important vehicles around the vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, Cullinane in view of Hirotaka, Behring, Govindan, and Wang teaches the vehicle display apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Hirotaka further teaches displaying other vehicles as a group and not displaying the individual vehicles within the group (Fig. 6 & [0050]).
Cullinane and Hirotaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle display. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane, as modified, to incorporate displaying other vehicles as a group, as disclosed by Hirotaka, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of reducing the amount of information the driver has to process.
Behring further teaches displaying the vehicle that are arranged furthest forward in the sectors next to the ego vehicle as the vehicles next to the ego vehicle and in front of the ego vehicle are particularly relevant to the driving task ([0182 & 0190]).
Cullinane and Behring are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle display. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane, as modified, to show the vehicles in the cluster closest to the ego vehicle individually, as disclosed by Behring, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of showing the most important vehicles around the vehicle.
Cullinane, as modified, teaches wherein:
the display controller is configured to
individually display an other vehicle adjacent to the vehicle among the plurality of other vehicles, and
display, as the cluster, the plurality of other vehicles excluding the other vehicle adjacent to the vehicle.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullinane in view of Hirotaka, Behring, Govindan, and Wang, and further in view of Amano (US 2007/0273555).
Regarding claim 8, Cullinane in view of Hirotaka, Behring, Govindan, and Wang teaches the vehicle display apparatus as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein:
the display controller is configured to display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles forming the traffic congestion, in a display form different from a normal display form, the normal display form using a first color and the display form different from the normal display using a second color different from the first color.
Amano teaches wherein:
the display controller is configured to display, as the second transition information, the plurality of other vehicles forming the traffic congestion, in a display form different from a normal display form, the normal display form using a first color and the display form different from the normal display using a second color different from the first color (Amano, [0086] regarding displaying the background of the arrow mark in red when there is a current traffic-jam & [0087] regarding displaying the background of the arrow mark in white when there is no traffic-jam).
Cullinane and Amano are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle display. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cullinane, as modified, to incorporate changing the background color when there is traffic, as disclosed by Amano, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling the driver to quickly determine if a vehicle is part of traffic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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 BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665