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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding independent claim 1 and 10-11, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kim ¶0015 does not teach an offset distance calculated based on the velocity information and a processing time from when the target is detected until the mark is generated. However, the rejection does not rely on Kim for the processing-time. Kim teaches acquiring vehicle traveling information including velocity information and predicting an offset between the target object and the expected traveling path of the vehicle based on that information (Kim; ¶0006, ¶0015). Kosaka teaches correcting the display position of the attention mark based on the time difference between detection of the attention target and display of the attention mark, with greater correction when vehicle speed is higher (Kosaka ¶0049).
Applicant further argues that Kosaka does not teach offsetting the actual positional information in the actual relative approach direction. However, the rejection does not rely on Kosaka alone for this teaching. Kim teaches acquiring the actual relative approach direction of the target (Kim; ¶0006) and Kosaka teaches transforming target coordinates into display coordinates and positioning the attention mark at an offset display position relative to the detected target position (Kosaka; ¶0023-0024).
Applicant further argues that Kosaka teaches away from the claimed invention. Kosaka, ¶0049, discloses correcting the mark position based on processing time and vehicle speed. ¶0044 is a separate feature and does not discourage the ¶0049 teaching.
The newly amended claimed features are still met by the applied prior art references, thus, the rejections for claims 1 and 10-11 are maintained.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claims 2-9, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Since the rejection for the independent claim 1, which claims 2-9 depend on is maintained, claims 2-9 remain rejected.
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, 7-9, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0387645), hereinafter “Kim” and Kosaka et al. (US Patent Application Publication US 2017/0146796 A1), hereinafter “Kosaka”.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory (Kim; ¶0039, describes a hardware device that includes a memory and a processor), wherein the processor is configured to: acquire actual positional information related to a position of a target based on detection information of the target detected in surroundings of a vehicle (Kim; ¶0006, describes a second sensor part configured to acquire target object traveling information including position information of a target object and surrounding road information of the vehicle. This teaches detecting surrounding information and obtaining actual positional information of a target.) acquire velocity information related to a velocity of the vehicle (Kim; ¶0006, describes a first sensor part configured to acquire vehicle traveling information including velocity information of the vehicle. This teaches acquiring velocity information of the vehicle.) acquire an actual relative approach direction along which the target approaches the vehicle (Kim; ¶0006, describes acquisition of heading value information of a target object. This teaches acquiring the actual relative approach direction of the target with respect to the vehicle.) offset the actual positional information in the actual relative approach direction by an actual offset distance (Kim; ¶0015, describes predicting an offset between the target object and the expected traveling path of the vehicle based on the expected traveling path of the vehicle and the position information of the target object. This teaches offsetting the actual positional information in the approach direction by an actual offset distance.)
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose that the device is a display control device, generating a mark urging caution for overlay display on a display area provided in a cabin of the vehicle offset in a virtual relative approach direction on the display area corresponding to the actual relative approach direction by a virtual offset distance corresponding to the actual offset distance, or that the actual offset distance is calculated based on the velocity information and a processing time from when the target is detected until the mark is generated.
Kosaka teaches a display control device and generate a mark urging caution with respect to the target for overlay display on a display area provided in a cabin of the vehicle that is offset from an actual position of the target at the time acquiring the actual positional information, in a virtual relative approach direction on the display area corresponding to the actual relative approach direction, by a virtual offset distance on the display area corresponding to the actual offset distance (Kosaka; ABST describes “A vehicular display apparatus” that generates an attention mark on a windshield in superimposed manner close to the attention target and, ¶0023, describes a coordinate transformer that transforms 3D coordinate data of the attention target into 2D windshield coordinates. ¶0024 describes setting a base point at the 2D windshield position of the attention target and setting the attention mark display position a predetermined distance away from that base point. A display control device that maps the real-world actual approach direction and offset distance into corresponding virtual direction and offset distance values in display and generates an offset caution mark. This teaches generating a mark urging caution on the display area offset in the virtual relative approach direction corresponding to the actual relative approach direction, by a virtual offset distance corresponding to the actual offset distance.), wherein the actual offset distance is calculated based on the velocity information and a processing time from when the target is detected until the mark is generated (Kosaka; ¶0049, describes the display position of the attention mark is corrected based on the time difference between detection of the attention target and display of the attention mark, with more correction when the vehicle speed is higher. This teaches calculating the offset distance based on vehicle velocity information and processing time from target detection until the mark is generated.)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the controller of Kim to further include the display control of Kosaka, such that the offset predicted in Kim based on the actual relative approach direction is used as the actual offset distance for positioning the attention mark on the windshield in Kosaka in the corresponding virtual relative approach direction, accounting for processing delay and vehicle speed. The benefit of such a combination would have been to provide a quicker and more intuitive indication of the caution target to improve driver awareness and to avoid collisions.
Claim 10 has similar limitations as claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 11 has similar limitations as claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Kim, in view of Kosaka, teaches a display device comprising: the display control device of claim 1; but does not explicitly disclose an output section that outputs an image of the mark for overlay display on the display area provided in the vehicle cabin; and the display area on which the image output from the output section is overlay displayed.
However, Kosaka teaches an output section that outputs an image of the mark for overlay display on the display area provided in the vehicle cabin; and the display area on which the image output from the output section is overlay displayed.
(¶0021 “The display controller 7 performs display control for displaying an attention mark on the windshield so that the attention mark may be displayed in a superimposed manner close to a position on the windshield at which the driver sees the attention target.”) the display controller outputting an attention mark superimposed (overlay displayed) on the windshield (display area provided in the vehicle cabin).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to further combine and/or modify the teachings of Kim, in further view of Kosaka, to overlay the generated caution mark inside the vehicle cabin with the motivation to ensure easy and less distracting viewing by the user.
Regarding claim 8, Kim, in view of Kosaka, teaches a display system comprising: the display device of claim 7; but does not explicitly disclose a target detection section that detects the target in the surroundings of the vehicle.
However, Kosaka teaches a target detection section that detects the target in the surroundings of the vehicle (Fig. 1, ¶0017 “As shown in FIG. 1, a vehicular display apparatus 1 according to one or more embodiments of the present invention includes an attention target detector 3, a vehicle condition detector 5, a display controller 7, and an image generator 9.”) a display system that includes an attention target detector (target detection section) which (¶0019 “The attention target detector 3 analyzes an image acquired from the forward camera 31, and detects an attention target to which attention of a driver of the vehicle needs to be drawn.”) detects an attention target (target in the surroundings of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to further combine and/or modify the teachings of Kim, in further view of Kosaka, to include an attention target detector that detects targets in the surroundings of the vehicle with the motivation to ensure the caution mark is a relevant object to the operator of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Kim, in view of Kosaka, teaches the display system of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose a vehicle comprising: the display system and a windshield configuring the display area.
However, Kosaka further teaches a vehicle comprising: the display system and a windshield configuring the display area ((ABST “A vehicular display apparatus that displays an image on a windshield of a vehicle has an attention target detector configured to detect an attention target to which attention of a driver of the vehicle needs to be drawn...”) a vehicle comprising a display system that displays an image on a windshield (display area)).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to further combine and/or modify the teachings of Kim, in further view of Kosaka, to have a windshield configured as the display area in a vehicle with the motivation to ensure easy and less distracting viewing by the user.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kosaka, and further in view of: “Relative Velocity”: (https://www.webassign.net/ebooks/cj6demo/pc/c03/read/main/c03x3_4.htm) (2003), pages 1-5.
Regarding claim 2, Kim, in view of Kosaka, teaches the display control device
of claim 1 and Kim teaches obtaining vehicle velocity information (¶0006), but does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured such that the velocity information is information related to an absolute velocity of the vehicle in a case in which the acquired approach direction is a progression direction of the vehicle.
However, Relative Velocity illustrates and describes the velocity information is information related to an absolute velocity of the vehicle in a case in which the acquired approach direction is a progression direction of the vehicle (pg. 1, Figure 3.16) an object moving in the same direction (approach direction) of a vehicle moving in the same direction (progression direction) and obtaining the velocity in reference to a non-moving object (absolute velocity).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to further combine and/or modify the teachings of Kim, in view of Kosaka, and in further view of Relative Velocity such that the velocity of the vehicle is related to an absolute velocity in the situation where the approach direction of a target is a progression direction of a vehicle with the motivation to apply known mathematical concepts as they relate to velocity and moving objects to predict and warn against possible collisions.
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Kosaka teaches the display control device of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured such that the velocity information is information related to a relative velocity of the vehicle with respect to the target in a case in which the acquired approach direction is an oblique direction at an angle with respect to a progression direction of the vehicle. Examiner interprets “oblique direction at an angle” to be an angle between 0 and 180 degrees.
However, Relative Velocity teaches the velocity information is information related to a relative velocity of the vehicle with respect to the target in a case in which the acquired approach direction is an oblique direction at an angle with respect to a progression direction of the vehicle (pg. 4, example 11) an example where two vehicles are approaching one another at an oblique direction at an angle, with respect to the progression direction of the vehicles. In this example, relative velocities are used, as the oblique direction needs to be taken into consideration when calculating a possible collision.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to further combine and/or modify the teachings of Kim, in view of Kosaka, and in further view of Relative Velocity with the motivation to apply known mathematical concepts to predict and warn against possible collisions.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kosaka, and further in view of Inagaki et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0057056), hereinafter “Inagaki”.
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Kosaka teaches the display control device of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured such that an offset distance with which to offset the positional information is adjusted based on a processing time from detection of the target until generation of the mark.
However, Inagaki teaches wherein the processor is configured such that an offset distance with which to offset the positional information is adjusted based on a processing time from detection of the target until generation of the mark. (¶0054, “a certain processing time is required from the time when the captured image acquirer 30 captures the captured image until the target position detector 38 detects the target parking position 52 and the display processing unit 40 superimposes the parking frame 54. If the vehicle 1 moves even during this processing time, the target parking position 52 represented by the relative coordinates deviates.”) a processing time from when the detector detects the target parking position(detection of target) and (“Thus, the second moving amount calculator 42e of the moving amount acquirer 42a calculates, as a second moving amount, the distance by which the vehicle 1 has moved during the processing cycle for detecting the target parking position 52 from the time when the captured image was captured.”) adjusting based on an offset of the processing time from detection of the object and the display processing unit superimposes the parking frame (generates mark).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to further combine and/or modify the teachings of Kim, in view of Kosaka, to the teachings of Inagaki to adjust the display information based on processing time with the motivation to ensure the display marks are as accurate as possible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kosaka, and further in view of Sung Un Kim et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0275796), hereinafter “Sung Un Kim”.
Regarding claim 5, Kim, in view of Kosaka, teaches the display control device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured such that vehicle progression direction positional information related to a position of the target in a progression direction of the vehicle is acquired based on detection information of a radar.
However, Kim further teaches wherein the processor is configured such that vehicle progression direction positional information related to a position of the target in a progression direction of the vehicle is acquired based on detection information of a radar. (¶0006 “…a second sensor part configured to acquire target object traveling information including position information, velocity information, heading value information of a target object, and surrounding road information of the vehicle;”) a sensor part to detect target object positional information and heading value information (vehicle progression direction positional information) and (¶0007, “The second sensor part may include a camera, a radar…”) the sensor part may include a radar.
Kim also teaches vehicle orthogonal direction positional information related to the position of the target in an orthogonal direction orthogonal to the progression direction of the vehicle is acquired (Fig. 7) a scenario wherein the vehicle (1) traveling in a progression direction and a target (52) is in an orthogonal direction relative to the vehicle.
Although Kim teaches using cameras as sensors (¶0007), they do not explicitly disclose that obtaining positional information is based on a camera image of a camera.
However, Sung Un Kim teaches (¶0008 “The image acquisition unit may include a camera that is provided to acquire an image in front of the vehicle, an image behind the vehicle, an image of a left side of the vehicle and an image of a right side of the vehicle.”) a vehicle with a camera to capture images in front, behind, to the left, and to the right.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to further combine and/or modify the teachings of Kim, in view of Kosaka, to the teachings of Sung Un Kim such that the vehicle orthogonal direction positional information is acquired based on a camera as taught by Sung Un Kim with the motivation to have more reliable types of sensors capable of obtaining target information in all directions from the vehicle.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kosaka, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2007/0290823), hereinafter “Watanabe”.
Regarding claim 6, Kim, in view of Kosaka, teaches the display control device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured such that a size of the mark is changed based on the acquired positional information.
However, Watanabe teaches wherein the processor is configured such that a size of the mark is changed based on the acquired positional information.
(¶0043, “In this structure, a plurality of marks, each indicating the degree of danger with respect to another vehicle, are displayed at different positions corresponding to different distances in the front-to-back direction of the present vehicle.”) displaying marks indicating danger as well as (¶0044 “With respect to the plurality of the marks, it is possible that the farther from the present vehicle, the smaller the size of the mark in at least one of a front-to-rear direction and a width direction of the present vehicle.”) the farther (position) from the vehicle the smaller the size of the mark, which implies the reverse is true: that the closer the target, the larger the mark.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to further combine and/or modify the teachings of Kim, in view of Kosaka, to the teachings of Watanabe with the motivation to dynamically change the size of caution mark in order to more intuitively convey danger based on the proximity to the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAN F KALHORI whose telephone number is (571)272-5475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, DEVONA E FAULK can be reached at (571) 272-7515. 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.
/DAN F KALHORI/Examiner, Art Unit 2618
/DEVONA E FAULK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights