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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/23/2025 is being entered. Claims 1 and 20 are amended. Claim 2, 12, and 16 are canceled. Claim 21-23 are new claims. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-15, and 17-23 are pending, and rejected as detailed below. This action is final as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 and 103
Applicant argues that NAKAJIMA merely discloses predetermined display selection based on the content of information to be displayed, and does not disclose at least determining which display to show information on regardless of content type, based on the probability of where the driver's attention is likely to be directed, as determined from past operational data, as generally recited in dependent claim 2 (the limitations of which are now generally incorporated in the independent claims).
Applicant also argues that PASZKOWICZ fails to cure NAKAJIMA's deficiencies. For example, PASZKOWICZ merely discloses technology for detecting cumulative time a driver is looking at or away from the road in order to determine driver attentiveness (see PASZKOWICZ at, inter alia Paras. [0012]-[0014]). In the event that driver attentiveness is determined to be low, PASZKOWICZ for example activates a driver aid system such as Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC); Forward Warning Collision (FWC); Lane Departure Warning (LDW); Traffic Jam Assist (TJA); and Lane Keeping Aid (LKA) (see PASZKOWICZ at, inter alia Paras. [0055]-[0060]). As such, PASZKOWICZ is completely silent as to selecting a display apparatus from a plurality of different display apparatuses depending on whether or not line of sight information is outputted, as recited in the amended independent claims.
In accordance with a feature of the disclosure described in Applicant's PG published specification at, inter alia, Paragraph [0010], by selecting a display apparatus from a plurality of different display apparatuses depending on whether or not line of sight information is outputted, information necessary for safe driving can be displayed on a display apparatus to which a line of sight can be directed, even when no line of sight is detectable.
Applicant also argues that none of the applied references, when taken alone or in any proper combination, discloses at least the limitations of independent claims 1 and 20. It is thus respectfully requested that the Examiner withdraw the rejection of independent claims 1 and 20 and the claims dependent therefrom.
Applicant’s arguments, as amended herein, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and persuasive. Therefore, 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection for claims 1 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is made in view of previously applied references NAKAJIMA, and further in view of PASZKOWICZ.
More specifically, NAKAJIMA discloses the selection of the display unit based on the probability of where the driver's attention is likely to be directed, as determined from past operational data, in following paragraph (TECH-SOLUTION; “According to the third aspect of the present invention, even when the driver's line-of-sight direction is not easily directed to the most frequent line-of-sight direction display area in which important information is displayed, the driver sets the second line-of-sight direction display area. When viewed, it is possible to know that important information is displayed in another display area from the important information presence notification displayed in the second line-of-sight direction display area. Moreover, since the second line-of-sight direction display area is a display area in which the driver's line of sight is next to the most frequent line-of-sight direction display area, there is a relatively high possibility that the driver will see the display area soon. high. Therefore, the driver can recognize important information more quickly. In addition, although there may be one second gaze direction display area, a plurality of display areas may be set as the second gaze direction display area in descending order of frequency of gaze direction.”). Furthermore, PASZKOWICZ disclose how the cumulative time can be calculated. Resultantly, the combination of NAKAJIMA and PASZKOWICZ is able to teach the amended claim 1 and 20. In particular, the amendments to claims 1 and 20 are addressed in the instant office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has mentioned “plurality of different display apparatuses” in claim 1, 20, and 23. However, Applicant fails to provide any additional information about “plurality of different display apparatuses” and the difference between “plurality of different display apparatuses” and “plurality of display apparatuses”.
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.
Claim 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recite the limitation "the plurality of display apparatuses" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recite the limitation "the plurality of display apparatuses" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8-9, 13, 17-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP 2007145310 A), and further in view of Paszkowicz (US 20180285665 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakajima teaches (Currently Amended) A display control apparatus (Nakajima, Technical-field; “The present invention relates to a vehicle display system, and more particularly to a vehicle display system having a plurality of display areas.”), comprising:
a first selector that, when line-of-sight information indicating a direction in which a line of sight of an occupant of a vehicle is directed is outputted, selects one of a plurality of display apparatuses as a display apparatus for displaying information provided to the occupant of the vehicle, the plurality of display apparatuses being configured to display the information, the one display apparatus existing in the direction in which the line of sight is directed (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 10 (Provided translated copy); “When the driver's line-of-sight direction is in any of the display determination areas 36a to 36d, the displays 30a to 30d corresponding to the display determination areas 36a to 36d are determined as the display 30 on which important information is to be displayed. To do.”); and
a second selector that, when the line-of-sight information is not outputted, selects, based on history information as the display apparatus for displaying the information, the display apparatus of the plurality of display apparatuses to which the line of sight of the occupant is more likely to be directed than to other display apparatuses of the plurality of apparatuses (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 10 (Provided translated copy); “when the driver's line-of-sight direction is not included in any of the display determination regions 36a to 36d, the display 30 set in advance based on the type of information is determined as the display 30 on which important information is to be displayed. To do.”) and (Nakajima, TECH-SOLUTION, paragraph 6 (Provided translated copy); “According to the third aspect of the present invention, even when the driver's line-of-sight direction is not easily directed to the most frequent line-of-sight direction display area in which important information is displayed, the driver sets the second line-of-sight direction display area. When viewed, it is possible to know that important information is displayed in another display area from the important information presence notification displayed in the second line-of-sight direction display area. Moreover, since the second line-of-sight direction display area is a display area in which the driver's line of sight is next to the most frequent line-of-sight direction display area, there is a relatively high possibility that the driver will see the display area soon. high. Therefore, the driver can recognize important information more quickly. In addition, although there may be one second gaze direction display area, a plurality of display areas may be set as the second gaze direction display area in descending order of frequency of gaze direction.”).
Even though Nakajima disclose that the display area is selected based on the order of frequency of gaze direction, Nakajima does not appear to explicitly teach including.
However, Paszkowicz in the same field of endeavor (Paszkowicz, at least one para. 0001; “The present disclosure relates to a dynamic control apparatus and related method.”) teaches including (Paszkowicz, at least one para. 0010; “The determined driver attentiveness can comprise measuring a cumulative time and/or frequency of said eyes off-road event and/or said eyes on-road event. Thus, the amount of time during which the driver is looking at (or not looking at) the road can be quantified. The determined driver attentiveness could be determined based on a ratio of a first time for eyes off-road event(s) (i.e. when the driver is not looking at the road) to a second time for eyes on-road event(s) (i.e. when the driver is looking at the road).” More specifically, the cumulative time can be calculated for looking at the road (through the windshield) or other display panels. Based on that information, the line of sight of the occupant is more likely to be directed can be calculated by the second selector.).
Nakajima and Paszkowicz are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field of controlling one or more vehicular system in relation to the lien of sight as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the selection of display apparatus of the Nakajima with teaching of Paszkowicz. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the correct display apparatus can be selected based on the cumulative time of the line of sight to pass on the important information, when the occupant’s line of sight is not available and the claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (frequency of the line-of-sight direction) for another (cumulative time) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Nakajima teaches (Original) The display control apparatus according to claim 1, (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 10 (Provided translated copy); “when the driver's line-of-sight direction is not included in any of the display determination regions 36a to 36d, the display 30 set in advance based on the type of information is determined as the display 30 on which important information is to be displayed. To do.”).
Nakajima does not appear to explicitly teach wherein based on a number of times the line of sight is directed to the display apparatus selected by the first selector
However, Paszkowicz in the same field of endeavor (Paszkowicz, at least one para. 0001; “The present disclosure relates to a dynamic control apparatus and related method.”) teaches wherein based on cumulative time when the line of sight is directed to the display apparatus selected by the first selector (Paszkowicz, at least one para. 0010; “The determined driver attentiveness can comprise measuring a cumulative time and/or frequency of said eyes off-road event and/or said eyes on-road event. Thus, the amount of time during which the driver is looking at (or not looking at) the road can be quantified. The determined driver attentiveness could be determined based on a ratio of a first time for eyes off-road event(s) (i.e. when the driver is not looking at the road) to a second time for eyes on-road event(s) (i.e. when the driver is looking at the road).” More specifically, the frequency can be calculated for looking at the road (through the windshield) or other display panels. Based on that information, the line of sight of the occupant is more likely to be directed can be calculated by the second selector.).
Nakajima and Paszkowicz are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field of controlling one or more vehicular system in relation to the lien of sight as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the selection of display apparatus of the Nakajima with teaching of Paszkowicz. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the correct display apparatus can be selected based on the frequency of the line of sight to pass on the important information, when the occupant’s line of sight is not available.
Regarding claim 8, Nakajima teaches (Original) The display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second selector selects a preset display apparatus as the display apparatus to which the line of sight of the occupant is more likely to be directed than to the other display apparatuses (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 16 (Provided translated copy); “an initial setting position preset based on the contents of the display screen is determined as the display position of the display screen data. In this initial setting position, the display 30 (any one of the four displays 30a to 30d) that displays the display screen and the display position in the display 30 are specified.”).
Regarding claim 9, Nakajima teaches (Original) The display control apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
an image information output that when the second selector selects the display apparatus to which the line of sight of the occupant is more likely to be directed than to the other display apparatuses (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 20 (Provided translated copy); “Step S63 is a process executed by the display position determination device 22 after the driver's line-of-sight direction is input. In which position important information is displayed, that is, the important information is displayed among the four displays 30a to 30d. Decide which to display. For this purpose, first, the display 30 closest to the line-of-sight direction detected in step S62 is determined.”),
generates image information prompting a shift of the line of sight from a first display apparatus to a second display apparatus, the first display apparatus being one of the plurality of display apparatuses which is not selected by the second selector, the second display apparatus being one of the plurality of display apparatuses which is selected by the second selector (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 20 (Provided translated copy); “On the other hand, when the driver's line-of-sight direction is not included in any of the display determination regions 36a to 36d, the display position is determined as the initial setting position.”), and
outputs the image information to the first display apparatus (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 21 (Provided translated copy); “Returning to FIG. 3, in step S70, the display position determined in any of step S30, step S50 and step S60 (that is, one of the four displays 30a to 30d) is input together with the display information request signal. In order to display the displayed screen data, an instruction signal is output to the display position switching device 26. Thereby, the display object apparatus which displays a display screen is switched.”).
Regarding claim 13, Nakajima teaches (Original) The display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of display apparatuses are a center display, an in-vehicle meter panel, and a head-up display (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 5 (Provided translated copy); “In the present embodiment, the display 30 includes four displays: a navigation device display 30a, a meter unit display 30b, a head-up display 30c, and a windshield display 30d.”).
Regarding claim 17, Nakajima teaches (Original) The display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first selector identifies a display apparatus existing at a position closest to the line of sight as a display apparatus existing in a direction in which the line of sight of a driver is directed (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 20 (Provided translated copy); “Step S63 is a process executed by the display position determination device 22 after the driver's line-of-sight direction is input. In which position important information is displayed, that is, the important information is displayed among the four displays 30a to 30d. Decide which to display. For this purpose, first, the display 30 closest to the line-of-sight direction detected in step S62 is determined.”).
Regarding claim 18, Nakajima teaches (Original) A display control system, comprising:
a display control apparatus (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 2 (Provided translated copy); “the internal information processing apparatus 12 generates a display screen representing information inside the vehicle that should be notified to the driver by processing information from other devices and sensors provided in the vehicle”) according to claim 1; and a plurality of the display apparatuses (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 5 (Provided translated copy); “In the present embodiment, the display 30 includes four displays: a navigation device display 30a, a meter unit display 30b, a head-up display 30c, and a windshield display 30d.”).
Regarding claim 20, Nakajima teaches (Currently Amended) A display control method (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 2 (Provided translated copy); “the internal information processing apparatus 12 generates a display screen representing information inside the vehicle that should be notified to the driver by processing information from other devices and sensors provided in the vehicle”), comprising:
detecting a line of sight of an occupant of a vehicle by using an imager (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 8 (Provided translated copy); “the gaze direction detection device 20 that functions as a gaze direction detection means includes a vehicle interior camera 28 (see FIG. 2) attached to the rearview mirror. The in-vehicle camera 28 is also a camera for detecting the driver's gaze, and the gaze direction detecting device 20 detects the driver's gaze direction by analyzing an image of the driver's eyes taken by the in-vehicle camera 28.”);
outputting line-of-sight information indicating a direction in which the line of sight is directed (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 29 (Provided translated copy); “The line-of-sight storage unit 102 determines to which of the plurality of preset line-of-sight directions the line-of-sight direction detected by the line-of-sight direction detection device 20 belongs, and accumulates the determination result”);
selecting one of a plurality of different display apparatuses as a display apparatus for displaying information provided to the occupant of the vehicle, when the line-of- sight information is outputted, the plurality of display apparatuses being configured to display the information, the one display apparatus existing in the direction in which the line of sight is directed (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 10 (Provided translated copy); “When the driver's line-of-sight direction is in any of the display determination areas 36a to 36d, the displays 30a to 30d corresponding to the display determination areas 36a to 36d are determined as the display 30 on which important information is to be displayed. To do.”); and
selecting, as the display apparatus for displaying the information and based on history information the display apparatuses of the plurality of display apparatuses to which the line of sight of the occupant is more likely to be directed than to other display apparatuses of the plurality of display apparatuses, when the line-of-sight information is not outputted (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 10 (Provided translated copy); “when the driver's line-of-sight direction is not included in any of the display determination regions 36a to 36d, the display 30 set in advance based on the type of information is determined as the display 30 on which important information is to be displayed. To do.”) and (Nakajima, TECH-SOLUTION, paragraph 6 (Provided translated copy); “According to the third aspect of the present invention, even when the driver's line-of-sight direction is not easily directed to the most frequent line-of-sight direction display area in which important information is displayed, the driver sets the second line-of-sight direction display area. When viewed, it is possible to know that important information is displayed in another display area from the important information presence notification displayed in the second line-of-sight direction display area. Moreover, since the second line-of-sight direction display area is a display area in which the driver's line of sight is next to the most frequent line-of-sight direction display area, there is a relatively high possibility that the driver will see the display area soon. high. Therefore, the driver can recognize important information more quickly. In addition, although there may be one second gaze direction display area, a plurality of display areas may be set as the second gaze direction display area in descending order of frequency of gaze direction.”).
Even though Nakajima discloses that the display area is selected based on the order of frequency of gaze direction, Nakajima does not appear to explicitly teach including.
However, Paszkowicz in the same field of endeavor (Paszkowicz, at least one para. 0001; “The present disclosure relates to a dynamic control apparatus and related method.”) teaches including (Paszkowicz, at least one para. 0010; “The determined driver attentiveness can comprise measuring a cumulative time and/or frequency of said eyes off-road event and/or said eyes on-road event. Thus, the amount of time during which the driver is looking at (or not looking at) the road can be quantified. The determined driver attentiveness could be determined based on a ratio of a first time for eyes off-road event(s) (i.e. when the driver is not looking at the road) to a second time for eyes on-road event(s) (i.e. when the driver is looking at the road).” More specifically, the cumulative time can be calculated for looking at the road (through the windshield) or other display panels. Based on that information, the line of sight of the occupant is more likely to be directed can be calculated by the second selector.).
Nakajima and Paszkowicz are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field of controlling one or more vehicular system in relation to the lien of sight as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the selection of display apparatus of the Nakajima with teaching of Paszkowicz. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the correct display apparatus can be selected based on the cumulative time of the line of sight to pass on the important information, when the occupant’s line of sight is not available and the claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (frequency of the line-of-sight direction) for another (cumulative time) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 21, Nakajima teaches (New) The display control apparatus according to claim 1 (Nakajima, Technical-field; “The present invention relates to a vehicle display system, and more particularly to a vehicle display system having a plurality of display areas.”),
wherein when the line-of-sight information is outputted, the information is outputted to the display apparatus selected by the first selector without being based on the history information, and (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 10 (Provided translated copy); “When the driver's line-of-sight direction is in any of the display determination areas 36a to 36d, the displays 30a to 30d corresponding to the display determination areas 36a to 36d are determined as the display 30 on which important information is to be displayed. To do.”, wherein the display device is selected based on the line-of-sight and not on the history information); and
when the line-of-sight information is not outputted (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 10 (Provided translated copy); “when the driver's line-of-sight direction is not included in any of the display determination regions 36a to 36d, the display 30 set in advance based on the type of information is determined as the display 30 on which important information is to be displayed. To do.”), the information is outputted to the display apparatus selected by the second selector based on the history information about the display apparatus selected by the first selector when the line-of-sight information is outputted (Nakajima, TECH-SOLUTION, paragraph 6 (Provided translated copy); “According to the third aspect of the present invention, even when the driver's line-of-sight direction is not easily directed to the most frequent line-of-sight direction display area in which important information is displayed, the driver sets the second line-of-sight direction display area. When viewed, it is possible to know that important information is displayed in another display area from the important information presence notification displayed in the second line-of-sight direction display area. Moreover, since the second line-of-sight direction display area is a display area in which the driver's line of sight is next to the most frequent line-of-sight direction display area, there is a relatively high possibility that the driver will see the display area soon. high. Therefore, the driver can recognize important information more quickly. In addition, although there may be one second gaze direction display area, a plurality of display areas may be set as the second gaze direction display area in descending order of frequency of gaze direction.”, wherein the history information is the frequency of the gaze direction).
Regarding claim 22, Nakajima teaches (New) The display control apparatus according to claim 1 (Nakajima, Technical-field; “The present invention relates to a vehicle display system, and more particularly to a vehicle display system having a plurality of display areas.”), wherein the second selector selects, when the line-of-sight information is not outputted (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 10 (Provided translated copy); “when the driver's line-of-sight direction is not included in any of the display determination regions 36a to 36d, the display 30 set in advance based on the type of information is determined as the display 30 on which important information is to be displayed. To do.”), based on history information (Nakajima, TECH-SOLUTION, paragraph 6 (Provided translated copy); “According to the third aspect of the present invention, even when the driver's line-of-sight direction is not easily directed to the most frequent line-of-sight direction display area in which important information is displayed, the driver sets the second line-of-sight direction display area. When viewed, it is possible to know that important information is displayed in another display area from the important information presence notification displayed in the second line-of-sight direction display area. Moreover, since the second line-of-sight direction display area is a display area in which the driver's line of sight is next to the most frequent line-of-sight direction display area, there is a relatively high possibility that the driver will see the display area soon. high. Therefore, the driver can recognize important information more quickly. In addition, although there may be one second gaze direction display area, a plurality of display areas may be set as the second gaze direction display area in descending order of frequency of gaze direction.”, wherein the history information is the frequency of the gaze direction).
Even though Nakajima discloses that the display area is selected based on the order of frequency of gaze direction, Nakajima does not appear to explicitly teach including.
However, Paszkowicz in the same field of endeavor (Paszkowicz, at least one para. 0001; “The present disclosure relates to a dynamic control apparatus and related method.”) teaches including (Paszkowicz, at least one para. 0010; “The determined driver attentiveness can comprise measuring a cumulative time and/or frequency of said eyes off-road event and/or said eyes on-road event. Thus, the amount of time during which the driver is looking at (or not looking at) the road can be quantified. The determined driver attentiveness could be determined based on a ratio of a first time for eyes off-road event(s) (i.e. when the driver is not looking at the road) to a second time for eyes on-road event(s) (i.e. when the driver is looking at the road).” More specifically, the cumulative time can be calculated for looking at the road (through the windshield) or other display panels. Based on that information, the line of sight of the occupant is more likely to be directed can be calculated by the second selector.).
Nakajima and Paszkowicz are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field of controlling one or more vehicular system in relation to the lien of sight as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the selection of display apparatus of the Nakajima with teaching of Paszkowicz. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the correct display apparatus can be selected based on the cumulative time of the line of sight to pass on the important information, when the occupant’s line of sight is not available and the claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (frequency of the line-of-sight direction) for another (cumulative time) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 23, Nakajima teaches (New) The display control apparatus according to claim 1 (Nakajima, Technical-field; “The present invention relates to a vehicle display system, and more particularly to a vehicle display system having a plurality of display areas.”), wherein the different display apparatuses are each mounted on a different surface of the vehicle (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 5 (Provided translated copy); “ In the present embodiment, the display 30 includes four displays: a navigation device display 30a, a meter unit display 30b, a head-up display 30c, and a windshield display 30d.”)
Claim(s) 4, 7, 11, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP 2007145310 A) and Paszkowicz (US 20180285665 A1), and further in view of Oishi (US 20230012768 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nakajima teaches (Original) The display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second selector selects, as the display apparatus for displaying the information, one of a plurality of the display apparatuses selected by the first selector (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 10 (Provided translated copy); “when the driver's line-of-sight direction is not included in any of the display determination regions 36a to 36d, the display 30 set in advance based on the type of information is determined as the display 30 on which important information is to be displayed. To do.”), the one display apparatus being a display apparatus to which the line of sight has been directed at latest time.
Nakajima does not appear to explicitly teach the one display apparatus being a display apparatus to which the line of sight has been directed at latest time.
However, Oishi in the same field of endeavor (Oishi, at least one para. 0002; “The Patent Literature (hereinafter referred to as “PTL”) discloses a technique for displaying an alert image for informing a driver of the presence of an object near a vehicle on a display device located in a direction of a sight line of the driver among a plurality of display devices equipped to the vehicle.”) teaches the one display apparatus being a display apparatus to which the line of sight has been directed at latest time (Oishi, at least one para. 0061; “Thus, for example, in the traveling vehicle, when a vehicle-to-vehicle distance between the preceding vehicle is narrowed while the driver is looking at the screen of display apparatus 30A (e.g., operation screen of audio device), an alert image is superimposed and displayed on the original image of display apparatus 30A. Therefore, as compared to a case where an alert image is displayed on another display apparatus (e.g., head-up display and the like) that is other than display apparatus 30A”, wherein the alert image is displayed on the display apparatus 30A due to that the fact that the line of sight has been most recently directed at display apparatus 30A.).
The combination of Nakajima, Paszkowicz, and Oishi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field of controlling one or more vehicular system in relation to the lien of sight as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the selection of display apparatus of the Nakajima with teaching of Oishi. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the driver can be immediately notified to take collision avoidance action without any time delay (Oishi; 0061).
Regarding claim 7, Nakajima teaches (Original) The display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second selector selects, as the display apparatus for displaying the information, one of a plurality of the display apparatuses selected by the first selector (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 10 (Provided translated copy); “when the driver's line-of-sight direction is not included in any of the display determination regions 36a to 36d, the display 30 set in advance based on the type of information is determined as the display 30 on which important information is to be displayed. To do.”), the one display apparatus being a display apparatus on which an alert image has been displayed at latest time.
Nakajima does not appear to explicitly teach the one display apparatus being a display apparatus on which an alert image has been displayed at latest time.
However, Oishi in the same field of endeavor (Oishi, at least one para. 0002; “The Patent Literature (hereinafter referred to as “PTL”) discloses a technique for displaying an alert image for informing a driver of the presence of an object near a vehicle on a display device located in a direction of a sight line of the driver among a plurality of display devices equipped to the vehicle.”) teaches the one display apparatus being a display apparatus on which an alert image has been displayed at latest time (Oishi, at least one para. 0061; “Thus, for example, in the traveling vehicle, when a vehicle-to-vehicle distance between the preceding vehicle is narrowed while the driver is looking at the screen of display apparatus 30A (e.g., operation screen of audio device), an alert image is superimposed and displayed on the original image of display apparatus 30A. Therefore, as compared to a case where an alert image is displayed on another display apparatus (e.g., head-up display and the like) that is other than display apparatus 30A”, wherein the alert image is displayed on the display apparatus 30A due to that the fact that the line of sight has been most recently directed at display apparatus 30A.).
The combination of Nakajima, Paszkowicz, and Oishi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field of controlling one or more vehicular system in relation to the lien of sight as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the selection of display apparatus of the Nakajima with teaching of Oishi. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the driver can be immediately notified to take collision avoidance action without any time delay (Oishi; 0061).
Regarding claim 11, Oishi teaches (Original) The display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein an alert image for notifying the occupant of existence of an object detected by a detection apparatus for detecting an object existing in a surrounding area of the vehicle is displayed (Oishi, at least one para. 0042; “based on a detection result by surroundings monitoring apparatus 20, the subject-display apparatus to display an alert image for notifying the driver of the presence of the detected object.”).
Regarding claim 14, Oishi teaches (Original) The display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display apparatus for displaying the information displays an image in which an alert image is superimposed on an original image (Oishi, at least one para. 0060; “Image superimposer 33 generates, based on the original image information and the alert image information, superimposed-image information indicating an image obtained by superimposing the alert image on the original image, and inputs the resulting information to image display 34.”).
Regarding claim 19, Oishi teaches (Original) A vehicle in which a display control system according to claim 11 is mounted (Oishi, at least one para. 0024; “Display control system 100 is mounted on a vehicle such as a passenger vehicle, a freight vehicle, a ride-sharing vehicle, and the like.”).
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP 2007145310 A) and Paszkowicz (US 20180285665 A1), and further in view of Dias (US 20170120749 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Nakajima teaches (Original) The display control apparatus according to claim 1, (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 10 (Provided translated copy); “when the driver's line-of-sight direction is not included in any of the display determination regions 36a to 36d, the display 30 set in advance based on the type of information is determined as the display 30 on which important information is to be displayed. To do.”).
Nakajima does not appear to explicitly teach wherein based on cumulative time when the information is displayed on the display apparatus selected by the first selector
However, Dias in the same field of endeavor (Dias, at least one para. 0005-0008; “According to a further aspect of the present invention there is provided a method of controlling output of a notification to a driver in a vehicle cabin, the method comprising: using at least one sensor to monitor the driver to identify a driver distracted state; identifying which one of a plurality of areas of interest in the vehicle cabin the driver is currently looking at; and displaying a visual notification in a display region disposed proximal to or coincident with the identified area in dependence on identification of said driver distracted state.”) teaches wherein based on cumulative time when the information is displayed on the display apparatus selected by the first selector (Dias, at least one para. 0034; “Each of said plurality of areas of interest can be associated with a respective vehicle system. A time threshold can be defined for each said respective vehicle system; and/or a frequency threshold is defined for each said respective vehicle system. Each time threshold and/or frequency threshold can vary dependent upon at least one dynamic vehicle parameter, and/or at least one external parameter, and/or where the driver is looking within the vehicle cabin.”, wherein each said respective vehicle system can be the plurality of displays within the vehicle.).
The combination of Nakajima, Paszkowicz, and Dias are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field of controlling one or more vehicular system in relation to the lien of sight as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the selection of display apparatus of the Nakajima with teaching of Dias. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the correct display apparatus can be selected for the safe operation of the vehicle (Dias; 0113).
Regarding claim 6, Nakajima teaches (Original) The display control apparatus according to claim 1, (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 10 (Provided translated copy); “when the driver's line-of-sight direction is not included in any of the display determination regions 36a to 36d, the display 30 set in advance based on the type of information is determined as the display 30 on which important information is to be displayed. To do.”).
Nakajima does not appear to explicitly teach wherein based on a number of times the information is displayed on the display apparatus selected by the first selector
However, Dias in the same field of endeavor (Dias, at least one para. 0005-0008; “According to a further aspect of the present invention there is provided a method of controlling output of a notification to a driver in a vehicle cabin, the method comprising: using at least one sensor to monitor the driver to identify a driver distracted state; identifying which one of a plurality of areas of interest in the vehicle cabin the driver is currently looking at; and displaying a visual notification in a display region disposed proximal to or coincident with the identified area in dependence on identification of said driver distracted state.”) teaches wherein based on a number of times the information is displayed on the display apparatus selected by the first selector (Dias, at least one para. 0034; “Each of said plurality of areas of interest can be associated with a respective vehicle system. A time threshold can be defined for each said respective vehicle system; and/or a frequency threshold is defined for each said respective vehicle system. Each time threshold and/or frequency threshold can vary dependent upon at least one dynamic vehicle parameter, and/or at least one external parameter, and/or where the driver is looking within the vehicle cabin.”, wherein each said respective vehicle system can be the plurality of displays within the vehicle.).
The combination of Nakajima, Paszkowicz, and Dias are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field of controlling one or more vehicular system in relation to the lien of sight as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the selection of display apparatus of the Nakajima with teaching of Dias. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the correct display apparatus can be selected for the safe operation of the vehicle (Dias; 0113).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP 2007145310 A) and Paszkowicz (US 20180285665 A1), and further in view of Jung (US 20200074897 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Nakajima teaches (Original) The display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second selector selects a terminal apparatus as the display apparatus to which the line of sight of the occupant is more likely to be directed than to the other display apparatuses (Nakajima, Best-mode, paragraph 10 (Provided translated copy); “when the driver's line-of-sight direction is not included in any of the display determination regions 36a to 36d, the display 30 set in advance based on the type of information is determined as the display 30 on which important information is to be displayed. To do.”), the terminal apparatus being portable by the occupant.
Nakajima does not appear to explicitly teach the terminal apparatus being portable by the occupant.
However, Jung in the same field of endeavor (Jung, at least one para. 0009; “It is an aspect of the present disclosure to provide a display device for displaying a two-dimensional image or a three-dimensional image corresponding to whether or not a user's line of sight is recognized.”) teaches the terminal apparatus being portable by the occupant (Jung, at least one para. 0156; “The display device 200 of the present embodiment has been described with respect to the cluster provided on the dashboard of the vehicle 100. However, the display device 200 may be implemented as a display of a mobile device such as a smart phone, a tablet, and a notebook or as a display of a television.”).
The combination of Nakajima, Paszkowicz, and Jung are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field of controlling one or more vehicular system in relation to the lien of sight as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the selection of display apparatus of the Nakajima with teaching of Jung. One of the ordinar