DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1 and 3-20 have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 3, 9, and 14 are amended. Claims 4-8, 10-13, and 15-20 are original. Claim 2 is cancelled. This is a final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 3/17/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application KR10-2022-0188865 filed in the Republic of Korea on 12/29/2022. Per Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/17/2026 (p. 9-10), the priority document electronically retrieved and in the file wrapper, dated 2/8/2024, is acknowledged as the priority document. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 3/17/2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the priority claim (presented on p. 9-10), the remarks are acknowledged and the document filed 2/8/2024 is understood to be the certified copy of the priority document.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim objection (presented on p. 10), the amendments are acceptable. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim interpretation under 112(f) (presented on p. 10), the remarks are acknowledged but are not persuasive. The remarks state that the controller constitutes hardware as evidenced by the specification. However, the three-prong test as detailed in MPEP 2181 relies on an analysis for whether the limitation in the claim contains a generic placeholder, with functional language, that is not modified by structure. Because the term “controller” is a generic placeholder and the structure cited by applicant is in the specification and not the claim, the term is continued to be interpreted as invoking 112(f).
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 10), the arguments and amendments are partially persuasive. The arguments and amendments regarding the “surrounding information” are persuasive, and therefore this rejection has been withdrawn. Regarding the term “size ratio,” the arguments state that this term has replaced “scale” but do not provide any further reasoned arguments. The office maintains that the term is indefinite as it is not clear what the “ratio” is between (see the rejection below for complete detail), and the rejection is maintained. Additionally, the “scrolling” has been replaced by “movement” however it remains unclear what it means for there to be movement to the desired location and deviation according to the movement, in the context of the claim (see the rejection below for complete detail), and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 101 (presented on p. 10-11), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 102 and 103 (presented on p. 12-13), the arguments and amendments are partially persuasive. The arguments and amendments are persuasive regarding the rejection under 102, and the rejection is withdrawn.
However, the arguments regarding the combination of US2024/0210201A1 (Tsujino et al.) and US2018/0170179A1 (Kemnitz) are not persuasive. The arguments (p. 13) state that Tsujino et al. does not disclose receiving of both a touch operation and surrounding information and that a combination of Tsujino et al. and Kemnitz would not teach or suggest the receiving of both a touch operation and surrounding information and controlling of a display based on both inputs. Tsujino et al. is determined to receive surrounding information and control the display based on this information ([0051-0054], Figure 7) and no reasoned arguments have been provided regarding this information. While the office agrees that Tsujino et al. does not explicitly recite the input of touch operation, Kemnitz teaches this limitation (see [0026, 0037]). The office maintains that the combination would render the claim obvious, as the input of the surrounding information in Tsujino et al. controls the display of the contents of the second display area 82, while the touch input as taught by Kemnitz would control the selective display of the second display area (e.g. hidden at times and shown at other times based on the hide function). In this way, the display is controlled based on both pieces of information. Based on the complete arguments and amendments a new grounds of rejection under 103 is presented below, based on the same art as previously relied upon.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitations are:
(a) “a controller” configured to receive input and control the display, in Claim 1
(b) “a controller” controlling the display, in Claim 14.
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “controller” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(a) and (b), specification p. 10, ln. 24-28 state that the controller may be a processors, an ECU, or microcontroller.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 3-20 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, the phrase “size ratio of the second display area” renders the claims indefinite. The term “ratio” may be generally defined as a quotient or relationship between two or more things. However, the claims only establish the second display area and do not establish what the other thing is (the other size or dimension or area). It is unclear whether the size ratio refers to a ratio of size between the first and second areas on the display, or alternatively whether the size ratio is related to content displayed in the second area (such as a zoom level, i.e. a ratio of display area to a virtual map dimension). The disclosure appears to include both of these possibilities (Figures 3 and 4 showing different “zoom” ratio while specification p. 13, ln. 1 recites increasing a size of second display area 112). The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the phrase is interpreted as the ratio of the size of the second display area relative to the first display area.
Claims 3-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 1 or 14 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claim 3, the control of “movement of the map to the desired location” renders the claim indefinite. The claim states that this is in response to tapping a desired location by a user on a map on the first area. In other words, the view of the map already includes the desired location. It is not clear what the “movement” accomplishes or how there can be “movement” to an area which is already in view, and whether this refers to centering the desired location on the screen, or whether the desired location is selected from a menu or list on the map rather than the map itself, or something else. Additionally, regarding Claim 3, the phrase “in response to deviating from a current driving route according to the movement of the map” renders the claim indefinite. Particularly, it is not clear what actually deviates from the current driving route, and whether the deviation refers to the on-screen movement itself (e.g. the viewed area of the map being scrolled/moved away from the current route), or alternatively whether this refers to deviation of the vehicle from an intended route (which would appear to be based on position measurement and not depend on the map display), or something else. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as any tapping of a desired location and hiding of the second display area.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2024/0210201A1 (Tsujino et al.) in view of Publication US2018/0170179A1 (Kemnitz).
Regarding Claim 1, Tsujino et al. discloses a vehicle (see Figures 1, 2, [0031]), comprising:
a display (see [0031] first display unit 24) configured to display, on a display screen, at least one of a first display area on which navigation information is displayed (see Figure 4, [0058] all display area 80 showing map and route) or a second display area disposed on the first display area (see Figure 5, [0059] second display area 82 on part of the first display area 80) and on which advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) information (see [0063-0065] e.g. road condition, preceding vehicle V1, speed, as part of adaptive cruise control (ACC) operation or peripheral vehicle related to lane change assist (LCA) system) and route guidance information are displayed (see [0063] lane of travel); and
a controller (see [0034-0035] device 10 having CPU [0069] performing function of Figure 7) configured to:
receive surrounding information of the vehicle as input (see Figure 2, [0051-0055] units 60-68 having data about vehicle state, e.g. map around the vehicle, peripheral information such as lane marking, other vehicles),
control the display (see Figure 7, control display in S13 or S15 based on decision at S11) based on the input (see Figure 7, [0070], based on acquired data at S10 from units 60-68), so that only the first display area is displayed on the display screen (see [0071] S13 as illustrated in Figure 4, only first display area 80 displayed), both the first display area and the second display area are displayed on the display screen (see [0071] S15 as illustrated in Figure 5, first and second display areas), or a size ratio of the second display area is adjusted (see [0060] changed size relationship between the first display area 80 and second display area 82 according to the driving state of driver acquired by the unit 66).
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the conjunction "or," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
Tsujino et al. does not explicitly recite the controller to:
receive a touch operation of the display screen, and
control the display based on the inputs, and
control the second display area to disappear, in response to tapping the second display area by a user in a state where both the first display area and the second display area are displayed.
However, Kemnitz teaches a technique for controlling display of driver assistance information (see e.g. Figure 3),
receive a touch operation of the display screen, and
control the second display area to disappear, in response to tapping the second display area by a user (see [0037] hide selector 309 minimize or hide interface 300, [0026] touch screen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the second display area of Tsujino et al. (which is displayed in a state where both the first display area and the second display area are displayed) to be able to be hidden by a tapping operation as taught by Kemnitz (resulting in overall display control based on both the surrounding information input and touch input), with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving user convenience and customization by allowing manual hiding and expanding of information (see Kemnitz, [0037]).
Regarding Claim 4, Tsujino et al. discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the ADAS information includes at least one of:
driving information of the vehicle for driver assistance (see [0063-0065] e.g. road condition, preceding vehicle V1, speed, as part of adaptive cruise control (ACC) operation or peripheral vehicle related to lane change assist (LCA) system), information about a distance to another vehicle (see Figure 5, [0063] icons show space between subject vehicle and preceding vehicle), information about surrounding traffic volume (see [0063-0064] preceding or peripheral vehicle, i.e. non-zero volume), information about a location of entering a highway or a tollgate or transferring to another highway, information about a location of a left or right turn, a U-turn, or a lane-changing location, information about weather and road environment (see [0063] road condition), information about a driving time, or information about a speed of a nearby vehicle.
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the phrase "at least one," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
Regarding Claim 13, Tsujino et al. discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the display is mounted on at least one of an audio, video, navigation, telematics (AVNT) area, a cluster (see Figure 1, [0028] instrument panel, or alternatively cluster of displays), and a head-up display (HUD) area of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 14, Tsujino et al. discloses a control method of a vehicle display (see Figure 7), the control method comprising:
displaying, on a display screen of a display, both a first display area on which navigation information is displayed (see Figure 4 or 5, display including display area 80 showing map and route) and a second display area disposed on the first display area (see Figure 5, [0059] second display area 82 on part of the first display area 80) and on which advance driver assistance system (ADAS) information (see [0063-0065] e.g. road condition, preceding vehicle V1, speed, as part of adaptive cruise control (ACC) operation or peripheral vehicle related to lane change assist (LCA) system) and route guidance information are displayed (see [0063] lane of travel);;
receiving surrounding information of a vehicle as input (see Figure 2, [0051-0055] units 60-68 having data about vehicle state); and
controlling, by a controller, the display (see Figure 7, control display in S13 or S15 based on decision at S11) based on the input (see Figure 7, [0070], based on acquired data at S10 from units 60-68), so that only the first display area is displayed on the display screen (see [0071] S13 as illustrated in Figure 4, only first display area 80 displayed), both the first display area and the second display area are displayed on the display screen (see [0071] S15 as illustrated in Figure 5, first and second display areas), or a size ratio of the second display area is adjusted (see [0060] changed size relationship between the first display area 80 and second display area 82 according to the driving state of driver acquired by the unit 66),
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the conjunction "or," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
Tsujino et al. does not explicitly recite the method including:
receiving a touch operation of the display screen,
controlling the display based on the inputs, and
wherein the second display area is controlled to disappear, in response to tapping the second display area by a user (see [0037] hide selector 309 minimize or hide interface 300, [0026] touch screen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the second display area of Tsujino et al. (which is displayed in a state where both the first display area and the second display area are displayed) to be able to be hidden by a tapping operation as taught by Kemnitz (resulting in overall display control based on both the surrounding information input and touch input), with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving user convenience and customization by allowing manual hiding and expanding of information (see Kemnitz, [0037]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2024/0210201A1 (Tsujino et al.) in view of Publication US2018/0170179A1 (Kemnitz), further in view of Publication US2017/0359695A1 (Aerts).
Regarding Claim 3, Tsujino et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle of claim 1, wherein, in response to tapping a desired location by the user on a map displayed on the first display area, the controller is configured to control movement of the map to the desired location, and in response to deviating from a current driving route according to the movement of the map, control the second display area to disappear.
However, Aerts teaches a technique in a navigation interface (see e.g. Figure 1, [0036]), wherein:
in response to tapping a desired location by the user on a map displayed on the first display area (see Figure 3, left side, [0060], touching location on map), the controller is configured to control movement of the map to the desired location, and in response to deviating from a current driving route according to the movement of the map, control the second display area to disappear (see [0060], search card 115 (a second display area) changed to minimized state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first and second display areas of Tsujino et al. to use the display/minimizing technique as taught by Aerts, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving control and driving safety by allowing for one handed control of a map display (see Aerts, [0001]).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2024/0210201A1 (Tsujino et al.) in view of Publication US2018/0170179A1 (Kemnitz), further in view of Publication US2012/0123659A1 (Sato et al.).
Regarding Claim 5, Tsujino et al. discloses wherein the surrounding information of the vehicle includes information about surrounding traffic volume (see [0063-0064] preceding or peripheral vehicle, i.e. non-zero volume).
Tsujino et al. further discloses the first display area and the second display area to be displayed in response to a driver assistance function being activated (see Claim 7).
Tsujino et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle of claim 1, wherein:
the controller is configured to control only the first display area to be displayed on the display screen in response to the surrounding traffic volume being less than a predetermined value, and control both the first display area and the second display area to be displayed on the display screen in response to the surrounding traffic volume exceeding the predetermined value.
However, Sato et al. teaches a way to activate a driver assistance function (see Figure 3, [0063], S109 deceleration assistance), wherein:
the controller is configured to not perform assistance in response to the surrounding traffic volume being less than a predetermined value (see Figure 3, “no” at S102), and perform assistance in response to the surrounding traffic volume exceeding the predetermined value (see Figure 3, “yes” at S102 leading to S109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display of a cruise control function of Tsujino et al. to further display the deceleration control features as taught by Sato et al., which are activated based on traffic volume, resulting in the display of the second area when traffic volume exceeds the threshold, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving driver convenience and safety by providing additional assistance and (see Sato et al. [0004]).
Regarding Claim 15, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 5. Claim 15 pertains to a method corresponding to the vehicle of Claim 5. Claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 5, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2024/0210201A1 (Tsujino et al.) in view of Publication US2018/0170179A1 (Kemnitz), further in view of Published Application US2024/0157938A1 (Toda).
Regarding Claim 6, Tsujino et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the surrounding information of the vehicle includes information about a location of the vehicle entering a highway or a tollgate or transferring to another highway, and
the controller is configured to control both the first display area and the second display area to be displayed on the display screen in response to the vehicle reaching the location.
However, Toda teaches a technique to display driver assistance information (see Figure 4, [0049], notification),
wherein the surrounding information of the vehicle includes information about a location of the vehicle entering a highway or a tollgate or transferring to another highway (see [0047] tollgate present in front), and
the controller is configured to display the driver assistance in response to the vehicle reaching the location (see Figure 4, notification at S4 based on reaching within first distance in S3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display of assistance information in Tsujino et al. (which comprises both the first display area and the second display area to be displayed on the display screen) to be used for at tollgate notification as taught by Toda, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to provide additional types of assistance and improving rider experience when approaching tollgates (see Toda, [0003-0004]).
Regarding Claim 16, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 6. Claim 16 pertains to a method corresponding to the vehicle of Claim 6. Claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 6, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2024/0210201A1 (Tsujino et al.) in view of Publication US2018/0170179A1 (Kemnitz), further in view of Published Application US2023/0322229A1 (Kumazaki).
Regarding Claim 7, Tsujino et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the surrounding information of the vehicle includes at least one of: information about a location of a left or right turn, a U-turn, or a lane-changing location, and
the controller is configured to control both the first display area and the second display area to be displayed on the display screen in response to the vehicle reaching the location.
However, Kumazaki teaches a technique to display driver assistance information (see [0050] notification of traveling information),
wherein the surrounding information of the vehicle includes at least one of: information about a location of a left or right turn, a U-turn, or a lane-changing location (see [0073] lane change start zone), and
the controller is configured to provide a notification in response to the vehicle reaching the location (see [0073] vehicle control unit 16 notifies the driver via the UI 7 that a lane change is to be started manually).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display of assistance information of the second area of Tsujino et al. (which includes controlling both the first display area and the second display area to be displayed on the display screen), to be used to further display lane change information as taught by Kumazaki, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving driver awareness and integration between assistance and manual driving by responding to driver preference and responding to conditions where automatic lane change cannot be carried out (see Kumazaki, [0008, 0073]).
Regarding Claim 17, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 7. Claim 17 pertains to a method corresponding to the vehicle of Claim 7. Claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 7, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2024/0210201A1 (Tsujino et al.) in view of Publication US2018/0170179A1 (Kemnitz), further in view of Publication US2017/0106876A1 (Gordon et al.).
Regarding Claim 8, Tsujino et al. discloses controlling the second display area to be additionally displayed on the display screen based on a driver assist being active (see Figure 7), and further discloses in response to driver information and both the first display area and the second display area being displayed on the display screen, increase the scale of the second display area according to a predetermined value (see [0060] changing size relationship between first and second areas based on driver information from 66, [0054] including whether driver is in hands on or hands off state).
Tsujino et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the surrounding information of the vehicle includes information about weather and road environment, and
the controller is configured to determine a driving difficulty level based on the information about weather and road environment,
in response to the driving difficulty level exceeding a predetermined value and only the first display area being displayed on the display screen, control the second display area to be additionally displayed on the display screen, and
in response to the driving difficulty level exceeding the predetermined value and both the first display area and the second display area being displayed on the display screen, increase the scale of the second display area according to a predetermined value.
However, Gordon et al. teaches a technique for driving control in a vehicle (see [0020]),
wherein the surrounding information of the vehicle includes information about weather and road environment (see [0028] weather, terrain, potholes, traffic), and
the controller is configured to determine a driving difficulty level based on the information about weather and road environment (see [0028] driving difficulty for a beginner is based on the weather, terrain, etc.),
in response to the driving difficulty level exceeding a predetermined value, activate driving assistance (see [0028] self-driving mode), and
wherein driver information is based on the driving difficulty level exceeding the predetermined value (see [0028] self-driving (hands off) based on difficulty level exceeding threshold ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display of the driver assistance data in the second display area (which occurs in response to only the first display area being displayed on the display screen) in Tsujino et al. to occur for activation of a self-driving mode as taught by Gordon et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving driver awareness of the vehicle situation (see Gordon et al., [0005-0007]).
Regarding Claim 18, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 8. Claim 18 pertains to a method corresponding to the vehicle of Claim 8. Claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 8, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2024/0210201A1 (Tsujino et al.) in view of Publication US2018/0170179A1 (Kemnitz), further in view of Publication US2018/0082583A1 (Fujii).
Regarding Claim 9, Tsujino et al. discloses controlling the second display area to be additionally displayed on the display screen based on a driver assist being active (see Figure 7), and further discloses in response to driver information and both the first display area and the second display area being displayed on the display screen, increase the scale of the second display area according to a predetermined value (see [0060] changing size relationship between first and second areas based on driver information from 66, [0054] including whether driver is in hands on or hands off state).
Tsujino et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to:
in response to the driving time of the vehicle exceeding a predetermined value and only the first display area being displayed on the display screen, control the second display area to be additionally displayed on the display screen, and
in response to the driving time exceeding the predetermined value and both the first display area and the second display area being displayed on the display screen, increase the scale of the second display area according to a predetermined value.
However, Fujii teaches a technique for displaying and performing a driver assistance function (see Figure 6, block 450), configured to:
in response to the driving time of the vehicle (see [0123] arrival time T) exceeding a predetermined value (see Figure 6, [0125], “no” at 630) control assistance information to be additionally displayed on the display screen (see [0125] block 450), and
the driving time exceeding the predetermined value indicative of driver information (see [0021-0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display of assistance information in the second area (which occurs in a condition where only the first display area being displayed on the display screen) of Tsujino et al. to further be used for display of driver assistance as taught by Fujii, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving driver safety by providing information related to intersections and traffic lights (see Fujii, [0003-0008]).
Tsujino et al. does not explicitly recite that the changing of scale is increasing, however, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, increasing scale, because there are a finite number of possible solutions of changing scale (increasing or decreasing) and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try these solutions with the motivation of further optimizing the user experience.
Regarding Claim 19, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 9. Claim 19 pertains to a method corresponding to the vehicle of Claim 9. Claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 9, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2024/0210201A1 (Tsujino et al.) in view of Publication US2018/0170179A1 (Kemnitz), further in view of Publication US2021/0264788A1 (Vladimerou et al.).
Regarding Claim 10, Tsujino et al. further discloses
in response to display of assistance information not occurring, control only the first display area to be displayed on the display screen (see Figure 7), and
in response to display of assistance information occurring, control both the first display area and the second display area to be displayed on the display screen (see Figure 7).
Tsujino et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the surrounding information of the vehicle includes information about a speed of a nearby vehicle, and
the controller is configured to:
in response to the speed of the nearby vehicle exceeding a predetermined value, control only the first display area to be displayed on the display screen, and
in response to the speed of the nearby vehicle being less than the predetermined value, control both the first display area and the second display area to be displayed on the display screen.
However, Vladimerou et al. teaches a technique to display assistance information (see [0029] message/warning),
wherein the surrounding information of the vehicle includes information about a speed of a nearby vehicle (see [0029] remote vehicle speed), and
the controller is configured to:
in response to the speed of the nearby vehicle exceeding a predetermined value, do not display assistance (see [0029] display warning only for speed less than 20 mph), and
in response to the speed of the nearby vehicle being less than the predetermined value, display assistance information (see [0029] display warning for remote vehicle speed less than 20 mph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display of assistance information in the second area of Tsujino et al. to further occur for remote vehicle speed warnings as taught by Vladimerou et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving driving safety (see Vladimerou et al., [0004-0007]).
Regarding Claim 20, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 10. Claim 20 pertains to a method corresponding to the vehicle of Claim 10. Claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 10, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2024/0210201A1 (Tsujino et al.) in view of Publication US2018/0170179A1 (Kemnitz), further in view of Publication US2015/0130607A1 (MacArthur).
Regarding Claim 11, Tsujino et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the surrounding information of the vehicle includes information about a speed of a vehicle approaching from behind, and
the controller is configured to control the second display area to be additionally displayed on the display screen, in response to the speed exceeding a predetermined value and only the first display area being displayed on the display screen.
However, MacArthur teaches a technique to display driving assistance information (see [0049] warning alert),
wherein the surrounding information of the vehicle includes information about a speed of a vehicle approaching from behind (see [0049] closing velocity from rear), and
the controller is configured to display assistance information, in response to the speed exceeding a predetermined value (see [0049] for vehicle approaching above a threshold closing velocity, the interior warning alert is activated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the activating of the second display area of Tsujino et al. (which occurs when only the first display area being displayed on the display screen) to occur for closing vehicles from the rear as taught by MacArthur, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving safety and avoiding collisions (see MacArthur, [0004-0008, 0019]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2024/0210201A1 (Tsujino et al.) in view of Publication US2018/0170179A1 (Kemnitz), further in view of Published Application US2025/0218435A1 (Mix et al.).
Regarding Claim 12, Tsujino et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle of claim 1, wherein, in response to receiving a plurality of pieces of surrounding information of the vehicle, the controller is configured to control the display based on an input value with a highest priority according to predetermined priorities.
However, Mix et al. teaches a technique to display plural pieces of driving assistance information (see Claim 12, displaying graphics assigned to the plurality of vehicle functions),
wherein, in response to receiving a plurality of pieces of surrounding information of the vehicle, the controller is configured to control the display based on an input value with a highest priority according to predetermined priorities (see Claim 12, simultaneously displaying graphics assigned to the plurality of vehicle functions on a screen of the vehicle with the displayed graphic for a vehicle function of the plurality of vehicle functions having a highest priority being distinctively marked).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display of a vehicle function of Tsujino et al. to display plural functions with priority as taught by Mix et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving convenience and user experience while interfacing with vehicle functions (see Mix et al., [0001-0003]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571)272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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 Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights