DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This is the First Action On the Merits (FAOM). 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. It is noted, however, that the retrieval of the certified copy as required by 37 CFR 1.55 was unsuccessful (see the file wrapper document PD.RETR.FAIL dated 5/29/2024) and Applicant should provide a certified copy of the priority document.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 14, the first recitation of ADAS should instead read “advanced driver assistance system (ADAS)”
Appropriate correction is required.
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)
(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 1-20 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 term “surrounding information of the vehicle” renders the claims indefinite. “Surrounding” is generally understood to mean enclosing, or extending around the margin or edge of something. In other words, the plain and ordinary meaning may suggest the term refers to the physical environment around the vehicle’s location. However, upon review of the dependent claims and specification for clarity (e.g. Claims 9, 19, specification p. 3), the surrounding information may be information about a driving time of the vehicle. It is therefore unclear how “surrounding” is being used to limit the information, and whether “surrounding information of the vehicle” should be interpreted as any information about the vehicle’s situation, or whether it must describe the surrounding environment, or something else. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the term is interpreted as any information related to vehicle travel or operation.
Additionally, regarding Claims 1 and 14, the phrase “scale of the second display area” renders the claims indefinite. The term “scale” may be generally defined as “a proportion between two sets of dimensions.” However, the claims only establish the second display area and do not establish what the other set of dimensions are. It is unclear whether the scale refers to the scale or size ratio between the first and second areas, or alternatively whether the scale is related to some content displayed in the second area, or something else entirely. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the phrase is interpreted as the scale of the second display area relative to the first display area.
Claims 2-13 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 (for Claims 2-13), or Claim 14 (for Claims 15-20) and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claim 3, the control of “scrolling 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 “scrolling” accomplishes or why it is necessary, 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 scrolling 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 scrolling action 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 is related to the scrolling, 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(101 Analysis - Step 1 - Statutory Category) Regarding Claims 1-20, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of subject matter as the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I - Judicial Exception) Regarding Independent Claim 1, the claim recites a vehicle, comprising:
a display configured to display, on a display screen, at least one of a first display area on which navigation information is displayed or a second display area disposed on the first display area and on which advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) information and route guidance information are displayed; and
a controller configured to:
receive a touch operation of the display screen or surrounding information of the vehicle as an input, and
control the display based on an input value of the input, so that only the first display area is displayed on the display screen, both the first display area and the second display area are displayed on the display screen, or a scale of the second display area is adjusted.
The limitations indicated in BOLD above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are an abstract idea of a mental process, capable of being performed in a human mind or manually, using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Particularly, a person can mentally or manually receive a touch operation of the display screen or surrounding information of the vehicle as an input (for example the person receiving an image, or a printed table of information describing the surrounding environment of the vehicle, such as presence or absence of other vehicles in front, behind, left/right. Examiner’s note: the limitation recites an alternative “or,” such that only one of the elements is necessary in the BRI of the claim,. Therefore the receiving of a touch operation is not required.), and
decide, based on an input value of the input, so that only the first display area is displayed on the display screen, both the first display area and the second display area are displayed on the display screen, or a scale of the second display area is adjusted (the person deciding or writing down a decision of how the display should be configured.).
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II - Practical Application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitations indicated with underlining above are additional elements in the claim. That is, the additional elements in the claim are a vehicle, comprising: a display configured to display, on a display screen, at least one of a first display area on which navigation information is displayed or a second display area disposed on the first display area and on which advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) information and route guidance information are displayed; and a controller configured to: control the display.
For the vehicle, this is recited broadly, without any details of the vehicle or its features or functions (beyond comprising the display and controller). Therefore, the claim merely generally ties the abstract idea to the field of vehicles, and does not limit the claim or abstract idea in a meaningful way. Therefore, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For the display configured to display, on a display screen, at least one of a first display area on which navigation information is displayed or a second display area disposed on the first display area and on which advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) information and route guidance information are displayed, this is determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, because it corresponds to mere data output (Examiner’s note: as the claim recites alternative, the BRI of this limitation is merely displaying navigation area in the first area). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g), examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity include: iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);).
For the controller performing the receiving and controlling, this is the recitation of generic computer components and their use, recited at a high level of generality. The claims do not provide an improvement in computer hardware or computing technology. Therefore, the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the ordered combination does not add anything already present when the elements are considered separately and merely recites input and output of data to/from a processor and display at a high level of generality.
(101 Analysis - Step 2B - Significantly More / Inventive Concept) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As above, the additional elements in the claim are a vehicle, comprising: a display configured to display, on a display screen, at least one of a first display area on which navigation information is displayed or a second display area disposed on the first display area and on which advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) information and route guidance information are displayed; and a controller configured to: control the display.
For the vehicle, which was determined merely generally tie the abstract idea to the field of vehicles, this does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see e.g. US20100318573A1 at [0002-0003].)
For the display configured to display, on a display screen, at least one of a first display area on which navigation information is displayed or a second display area disposed on the first display area and on which advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) information and route guidance information are displayed, which was determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, this is re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see e.g. US20100318573A1 at [0002-0003], US20090171582A1, Figure 1. It is noted that due to the alternative limitations, only display of a first display area on which navigation information is displayed is required).
For the controller performing the receiving and controlling, for the same reasons as presented above, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, at a high level of generality, such that the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the functions using a generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see MPEP 2106.05(d) computer functions which are recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity include: ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to amount to significantly more as the ordered combination merely recites input and evaluation of data by a processor or display and is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see e.g. US20100318573A1, [0002-0003]).
Regarding Independent Claim 14, the claim recites the same abstract idea in the form of a method, and the additional elements have been considered with respect to Claim 1, above. Thus, the claim is rejected per the same rationale.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-13 and 15-20 do not recite further limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 2 and 3 further detail the controller responding to receiving the touch operation, which was recited in the alternative in Claim 1. Therefore, the additional details of Claims 2 and 3 are not required under the BRI of the claim when the claim is interpreted such that the surrounding information is what is received.
Claim 4 recites types of ADAS information for display, which is a further detail of the ADAS information which was recited in the alternative in Claim 1. Therefore the additional detail is not required under the BRI of the claim.
Claims 5-12 and 15-20 recite consideration of specific types of surrounding information, and corresponding control of the display. The consideration of specific types of surrounding information and corresponding decision is further detail of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person or driver can receive or observe driving information and make decisions about what should be displayed based on this information. The displaying of the data is insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art for the same reasons as presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Examiner's note: for any claim limitation using the conjunction "or," or the phrase “at least one,” only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
Claims 1-4, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Published Application US2024/0210201A1 (Tsujino et al.).
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 a touch operation of the display screen or surrounding information of the vehicle as an input (see Figure 2, [0051-0055] units 60-68 having data about vehicle state), and
control the display (see Figure 7, control display in S13 or S15 based on decision at S11) based on an input value of 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 scale 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).
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, the claims further narrow controlling based on a received touch operation of the display screen. Because this is recited in the alternative in Claim 1, these further details are not required when the prior art reads on the receiving of the surrounding information. For the purposes of examination, an alternative rejection is set forth below (see Rejections under 103).
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.
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 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 a touch operation of the display screen or surrounding information of a vehicle as an 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 an input value of 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 scale 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).
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.
In the alternative, Claim 2 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).
Regarding Claim 2, Tsujino et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to 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),
wherein the controller is configured to 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 cruise control display 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 as taught by Kemnitz, 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]).
In the alternative, 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 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 a user on a map displayed on the first display area, the controller is configured to control scrolling the map to the desired location, and in response to deviating from a current driving route according to scrolling 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 a 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 scrolling the map to the desired location, and in response to deviating from a current driving route according to scrolling 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 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 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2024/0210201A1 (Tsujino et al.) 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 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]).
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 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2024/0210201A1 (Tsujino et al.) 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 surrounding information of the vehicle includes information about a driving time of the vehicle, and
the controller is configured to:
in response to the driving time 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),
wherein the surrounding information of the vehicle includes information about a driving time of the vehicle (see [0123] arrival time T), and
the controller is configured to:
in response to the driving time 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 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 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 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
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