DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 03/02/2026. Claims 1-4 and 7-14 are pending. Claims 12-14 have been added. Claims 1-4 and 7-11 have been amended. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections to claims 1, 7, and 8 have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 02/04/2026 has been acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. It is now clear that the image is terminated when an acceleration or deceleration has been performed by the driver and not the cruise control. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 7, and 8 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Namely, Examiner respectfully disagrees that Watanabe fails to render obvious acquiring a target acceleration output by the following cruise control with an express sign convention, determining whether an absolute value of the target acceleration is a specific value or greater, displaying an image corresponding to the target acceleration based on that determination.
While “acquiring a target acceleration” is not explicitly taught, Watanabe does teach “when a current actual inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle is longer than the set inter-vehicular distance, the accelerating system 8 is controlled to shorten the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle as increasing the speed of the own vehicle. When the current actual inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle is shorter than the set inter-vehicular distance, the braking system 9 is controlled to lengthen the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle as decreasing the speed of the own vehicle” (par. 59). The accelerating system 8 and braking system 9, therefore, are controlled to determine the correct acceleration amount in order to fix the inter-vehicle distance. This could be considered “acquiring a target acceleration”.
Furthermore, the image is displayed when the acceleration or deceleration is at least greater than zero, which could be considered “determining whether an absolute value of the target acceleration is a specific value or greater”. Examiner would like to note that although Watanabe does not teach a specific value other than zero as the acceleration threshold, displaying a warning or notification when acceleration reaches a certain amount is already well known in the field. For example, Rothenberg (US 20190100135 A1) and Lee (US 20210199981 A1) teach this limitation. Examiner’s reasoning is further detailed below under Claim Rejections.
Applicant’s remaining arguments regarding Kawasaki and Kim are moot since those references are not used in the rejection to claims 1, 7, and 8 in this Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 20180198955) in view of Carrea (EP 1101647 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a display control device (Fig. 1, vehicle-use image display system 2) that displays an image in a display area of a display unit (Fig. 1, display device 4) showing a scene ahead of a vehicle or an image replicating the scene ahead (Figs. 4a-5c and 8a-11b), the display control device comprising at least one processor (Fig. 1, display controller 5), the at least one processor being configured to:
detect a lead vehicle (Fig. 1, preceding vehicle detecting portion 11, part of ACC system 3; Fig. 4A, preceding vehicle 32);
acquire target acceleration of the vehicle output by following cruise control with the lead vehicle as a follow target (par. 59, “when a current actual inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle is longer than the set inter-vehicular distance, the accelerating system 8 is controlled to shorten the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle as increasing the speed of the own vehicle. When the current actual inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle is shorter than the set inter-vehicular distance, the braking system 9 is controlled to lengthen the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle as decreasing the speed of the own vehicle”—the accelerating system 8/braking system 9 would need to determine an acceleration that will return the inter-vehicular distance to the set value. Therefore, the ACC controller 7 which controls these systems would need to determine a target acceleration that would accomplish this), wherein positive target acceleration corresponds to acceleration and negative target acceleration corresponds to deceleration (par. 59, accelerating system 8 for acceleration and braking system 9 for deceleration);
determine whether an absolute value of the target acceleration is a specific value or greater (the specific value could be zero, therefore the absolute value of the target acceleration would be greater than the specific value anytime the vehicle accelerates or decelerates), and, based on the determination, display an image corresponding to the target acceleration in the display area between the vehicle and the lead vehicle. (par. 67, “it is possible to inform a driver of that the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle 32 is becoming large and the own vehicle is to be accelerated in accordance therewith, for example, by changing the color of the marking image 35 to a striking color (e.g., from yellow to red or orange), enlarging thickness of the frame line, changing the frame shape, displaying with blinking and/or fluorescence, enhancing luminance, or dynamically changing display properties of the above and others”; par. 68, “it is possible to inform the driver of that the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle 32 is becoming small and the own vehicle is to be decelerated in accordance therewith owing to that the color and the display properties such as displaying with blinking and/or fluorescence are changed”).
(Examiner would like to note that although Watanabe does not teach a specific value greater than zero as an acceleration threshold, displaying a warning or notification when acceleration reaches a certain amount is already well known in the field. For example, Rothenberg (US 20190100135 A1) and Lee (US 20210199981 A1) teach this limitation.)
Watanabe fails to teach terminate display of the image corresponding to the target acceleration in cases in which an acceleration or deceleration operation has been performed by a driver, such that acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle is by operation of the driver and not acceleration or deceleration due to the following cruise control, while the following cruise control remains active.
However, Carrea teaches terminate display of the image corresponding to the target acceleration in cases in which an acceleration or deceleration operation has been performed by a driver, such that acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle is by operation of the driver and not acceleration or deceleration due to the following cruise control, while the following cruise control remains active (par. 10, “Any action by the driver on the accelerator pedal to increase the speed of the vehicle, on the other hand, only temporarily disables the automatic speed and distance control to allow the set cruise speed, to be exeded and upon cessation of the action exerted on the accelerator pedal the control device automatically returns the vehicle to the set speed. During the period for which manual control is temporarily installed the display showing the presence of a preceding vehicle is also interrupted as is the indication of the distance to which the vehicle is maintained with respect to the preceding vehicle, and the driver is provided with an indication of temporary return to manual control of the vehicle for example by making the cruise speed indication flash”).
Carrea teaches terminating an image relating to the inter-vehicle distance when a driver temporarily takes over an autonomous vehicle. While Carrea teaches an inter-vehicle distance image instead of an acceleration image, given that both are related to a vehicle’s cruise control, it would have been obvious that Watanabe’s acceleration image could also be terminated in the same way. Although they teach that keeping the cruise-control related image even during the override would be beneficial to the driver (par. 13), Carrea teaches the terminating the image is already well-known in the art. "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would have been obvious to terminate Watanabe’s acceleration image while the driver performs acceleration/deceleration.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Watanabe in view of Carrea teaches the display control device of claim 1. Watanabe further teaches the at least one processor is configured to change a display mode of the image corresponding to the target acceleration between cases of the vehicle accelerating (par. 67, “it is possible to inform a driver of that the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle 32 is becoming large and the own vehicle is to be accelerated in accordance therewith, for example, by changing the color of the marking image 35 to a striking color (e.g., from yellow to red or orange), enlarging thickness of the frame line, changing the frame shape, displaying with blinking and/or fluorescence, enhancing luminance, or dynamically changing display properties of the above and others”) and cases of the vehicle decelerating (par. 68, “it is possible to inform the driver of that the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle 32 is becoming small and the own vehicle is to be decelerated in accordance therewith owing to that the color and the display properties such as displaying with blinking and/or fluorescence are changed”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Watanabe in view of Carrea teaches the display control device of claim 1. Watanabe further teaches the at least one processor is configured to display the image corresponding to the target acceleration prior to an actual acceleration of the vehicle becoming the specific value or greater in cases in which an acceleration is predicted to become the specific value or greater due to following cruise control (par. 67, “it is possible to inform a driver of that the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle 32 is becoming large and the own vehicle is to be accelerated in accordance therewith, for example, by changing the color of the marking image 35 to a striking color (e.g., from yellow to red or orange), enlarging thickness of the frame line, changing the frame shape, displaying with blinking and/or fluorescence, enhancing luminance, or dynamically changing display properties of the above and others”).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a display control program that is executable by a computer (Fig. 1, display controller 5) to perform processing to display an image in a display area of a display unit (Fig. 1, display device 4) showing a scene ahead of a vehicle or an image replicating the scene ahead (Figs. 4a-5c and 8a-11b), the processing comprising:
detecting a lead vehicle traveling ahead of the vehicle (Fig. 1, preceding vehicle detecting portion 11, part of ACC system 3; Fig. 4A, preceding vehicle 32);
acquiring target acceleration of the vehicle output by following cruise control with the lead vehicle as a follow target (par. 59, “when a current actual inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle is longer than the set inter-vehicular distance, the accelerating system 8 is controlled to shorten the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle as increasing the speed of the own vehicle. When the current actual inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle is shorter than the set inter-vehicular distance, the braking system 9 is controlled to lengthen the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle as decreasing the speed of the own vehicle”—the accelerating system 8/braking system 9 would need to determine an acceleration that will return the inter-vehicular distance to the set value. Therefore, the ACC controller 7 which controls these systems would need to determine a target acceleration that would accomplish this), wherein positive target acceleration corresponds to acceleration and negative target acceleration corresponds to deceleration (par. 59, accelerating system 8 for acceleration and braking system 9 for deceleration);
determining whether an absolute value of the target acceleration is a specific value or greater (the specific value could be zero, therefore the absolute value of the target acceleration would be greater than the specific value anytime the vehicle accelerates or decelerates), and, based on the determination, display an image corresponding to the target acceleration in the display area between the vehicle and the lead vehicle (par. 67, “it is possible to inform a driver of that the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle 32 is becoming large and the own vehicle is to be accelerated in accordance therewith, for example, by changing the color of the marking image 35 to a striking color (e.g., from yellow to red or orange), enlarging thickness of the frame line, changing the frame shape, displaying with blinking and/or fluorescence, enhancing luminance, or dynamically changing display properties of the above and others”; par. 68, “it is possible to inform the driver of that the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle 32 is becoming small and the own vehicle is to be decelerated in accordance therewith owing to that the color and the display properties such as displaying with blinking and/or fluorescence are changed”).
Watanabe fails to teach terminating display of the image corresponding to the target acceleration in cases in which an acceleration or deceleration operation has been performed by a driver, such that acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle is by operation of the driver and not acceleration or deceleration due to the following cruise control, while the following cruise control remains active.
However, Carrea teaches terminating display of the image corresponding to the target acceleration in cases in which an acceleration or deceleration operation has been performed by a driver, such that acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle is by operation of the driver and not acceleration or deceleration due to the following cruise control, while the following cruise control remains active (par. 10, “Any action by the driver on the accelerator pedal to increase the speed of the vehicle, on the other hand, only temporarily disables the automatic speed and distance control to allow the set cruise speed, to be exeded and upon cessation of the action exerted on the accelerator pedal the control device automatically returns the vehicle to the set speed. During the period for which manual control is temporarily installed the display showing the presence of a preceding vehicle is also interrupted as is the indication of the distance to which the vehicle is maintained with respect to the preceding vehicle, and the driver is provided with an indication of temporary return to manual control of the vehicle for example by making the cruise speed indication flash”).
Carrea teaches terminating an image relating to the inter-vehicle distance when a driver temporarily takes over an autonomous vehicle. While Carrea teaches an inter-vehicle distance image instead of an acceleration image, given that both are related to a vehicle’s cruise control, it would have been obvious that Watanabe’s acceleration image could also be terminated in the same way. Although they teach that keeping the cruise-control related image even during the override would be beneficial to the driver (par. 13), Carrea teaches the terminating the image is already well-known in the art. "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would have been obvious to terminate Watanabe’s acceleration image while the driver performs acceleration/deceleration.
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe teaches a display control method for displaying an image in a display area of a display unit (Fig. 1, display device 4) showing a scene ahead of a vehicle or an image replicating the scene ahead (Figs. 4a-5c and 8a-11b), the method comprising, by a computer:
detecting a lead vehicle traveling ahead of the vehicle (Fig. 1, preceding vehicle detecting portion 11, part of ACC system 3; Fig. 4A, preceding vehicle 32); \
acquiring target acceleration of the vehicle output by following cruise control with the lead vehicle as a follow target (par. 59, “when a current actual inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle is longer than the set inter-vehicular distance, the accelerating system 8 is controlled to shorten the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle as increasing the speed of the own vehicle. When the current actual inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle is shorter than the set inter-vehicular distance, the braking system 9 is controlled to lengthen the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle as decreasing the speed of the own vehicle”—the accelerating system 8/braking system 9 would need to determine an acceleration that will return the inter-vehicular distance to the set value. Therefore, the ACC controller 7 which controls these systems would need to determine a target acceleration that would accomplish this), wherein positive target acceleration corresponds to acceleration and negative target acceleration corresponds to deceleration (par. 59, accelerating system 8 for acceleration and braking system 9 for deceleration);
determining whether an absolute value of the target acceleration is a specific value or greater (the specific value could be zero, therefore the absolute value of the target acceleration would be greater than the specific value anytime the vehicle accelerates or decelerates), and, based on the determination, display an image corresponding to the target acceleration in the display area between the vehicle and the lead vehicle (par. 67, “it is possible to inform a driver of that the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle 32 is becoming large and the own vehicle is to be accelerated in accordance therewith, for example, by changing the color of the marking image 35 to a striking color (e.g., from yellow to red or orange), enlarging thickness of the frame line, changing the frame shape, displaying with blinking and/or fluorescence, enhancing luminance, or dynamically changing display properties of the above and others”; par. 68, “it is possible to inform the driver of that the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle 32 is becoming small and the own vehicle is to be decelerated in accordance therewith owing to that the color and the display properties such as displaying with blinking and/or fluorescence are changed”).
Watanabe fails to teach terminating display of the image corresponding to the target acceleration in cases in which an acceleration or deceleration operation has been performed by a driver, such that acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle is by operation of the driver and not acceleration or deceleration due to the following cruise control, while the following cruise control remains active.
However, Carrea teaches terminating display of the image corresponding to the target acceleration in cases in which an acceleration or deceleration operation has been performed by a driver, such that acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle is by operation of the driver and not acceleration or deceleration due to the following cruise control, while the following cruise control remains active (par. 10, “Any action by the driver on the accelerator pedal to increase the speed of the vehicle, on the other hand, only temporarily disables the automatic speed and distance control to allow the set cruise speed, to be exeded and upon cessation of the action exerted on the accelerator pedal the control device automatically returns the vehicle to the set speed. During the period for which manual control is temporarily installed the display showing the presence of a preceding vehicle is also interrupted as is the indication of the distance to which the vehicle is maintained with respect to the preceding vehicle, and the driver is provided with an indication of temporary return to manual control of the vehicle for example by making the cruise speed indication flash”).
Carrea teaches terminating an image relating to the inter-vehicle distance when a driver temporarily takes over an autonomous vehicle. While Carrea teaches an inter-vehicle distance image instead of an acceleration image, given that both are related to a vehicle’s cruise control, it would have been obvious that Watanabe’s acceleration image could also be terminated in the same way. Although they teach that keeping the cruise-control related image even during the override would be beneficial to the driver (par. 13), Carrea teaches the terminating the image is already well-known in the art. "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would have been obvious to terminate Watanabe’s acceleration image while the driver performs acceleration/deceleration.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Watanabe in view of Carrea teaches the display control device of claim 1. Watanabe fails to teach when it is determined that the driver has performed the acceleration or deceleration operation, the at least one processor is configured to change a display mode of the image by at least one of decreasing brightness and increasing transparency.
However, Carrea teaches (par. 11, During the period for which manual control is temporarily installed the display showing the presence of a preceding vehicle is also interrupted as is the indication of the distance to which the vehicle is maintained with respect to the preceding vehicle”).
Carrea teaches that the image is interrupted and can no longer be seen by the driver. “Interrupting” the image could be considered decreasing brightness to 0% or increasing the transparency to 100% so that the image is no longer displayed.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Watanabe in view of Carrea teaches the display control device of claim 1. Watanabe further teaches the at least one processor is configured to set a warm color for the image when the target acceleration is positive (par. 67, “it is possible to inform a driver of that the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle 32 is becoming large and the own vehicle is to be accelerated in accordance therewith, for example, by changing the color of the marking image 35 to a striking color (e.g., from yellow to red or orange), enlarging thickness of the frame line, changing the frame shape, displaying with blinking and/or fluorescence, enhancing luminance, or dynamically changing display properties of the above and others”), and set a cold color for the image when the target acceleration is negative (par. 68, “it is possible to inform the driver of that the inter-vehicular distance against the target preceding vehicle 32 is becoming small and the own vehicle is to be decelerated in accordance therewith owing to that the color and the display properties such as displaying with blinking and/or fluorescence are changed”).
Although the specific colors are not taught, Watanabe does teach changing the color to represent a change in acceleration or deceleration. Deciding to use warm colors for acceleration and cold colors for deceleration would have been an obvious option. Furthermore, the courts have found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947); MPEP 2144.04). The specific color choices would be considered an aesthetic design choice.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Carrea, and further in view of Kim (US 20170287217).
The combination of Watanabe in view of Carrea teaches the display control device of claim 2. Watanabe fails to teach as the image corresponding to the target acceleration, the at least one processor is configured to display a mark pointing at the lead vehicle in cases of the vehicle accelerating, and a mark pointing at the vehicle in cases of the vehicle decelerating.
However, Kim teaches as the image corresponding to the target acceleration, the at least one processor is configured to display a mark pointing at the lead vehicle in cases of the vehicle accelerating (par. 36, “"arrows may be presented on the ground behind the object and in front of the user as AR content. The arrows may vary in number, intensity, color, texture, animation, or the like to provide additional feedback to the user of how the preceding object is acting. Thus, in such an aspect, when the preceding traveler is moving away from the user (e.g., accelerating with respect to the user), then the arrows may animate in a forward motion and be colored green”), and a mark pointing at the vehicle in cases of the vehicle decelerating (par. 36, “When the object is decelerating with respect to the user, the arrows may turn red and pulse to indicate a dangerous situation”).
Watanabe and Kim are analogous art because both relate to visually alerting the driver of the preceding traffic hazards. While Kim refers to an AR headset to be worn by a bicyclist, the methods used could easily translate to a vehicle display system.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Watanabe in view of Carrea to incorporate the teachings of Kim. Doing so would help ensure the safety of the user (par. 14-15). Additionally, Kim states giving the user an indication that the preceding object is accelerating “may be useful to keep traffic flowing in a relatively constant state and avoid unnecessary traffic waves, which may be caused in part when those following are slow to accelerate after previously slowing down” (par. 35).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Carrea, and further in view of Lee (US 20210199981 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Watanabe in view of Carrea teaches the display control device of claim 1. Both Watanabe and Carrea fail to teach the at least one processor is configured to terminate display of the image corresponding to target acceleration in a case that the absolute value of target acceleration is less than a specific value, while the following cruise control remains active.
However, Lee teaches the at least one processor is configured to terminate display of the image corresponding to target acceleration in a case that the absolute value of target acceleration is less than a specific value, while the following cruise control remains active (par. 14, "determining whether the measured acceleration is greater than or equal to a preset threshold value; and providing a planar image to the user as the AR object through the HUD system of the vehicle in response to the measured acceleration being greater than or equal to the preset threshold value"—image is only shown if the acceleration or deceleration is above a threshold, so therefore it would terminate if it is below the threshold).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Watanabe in view of Carrea to incorporate the teachings of Lee in order to improve driving safety (par. 3).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Watanabe in view of Carrea teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7. Both Watanabe and Carrea fail to teach the processing comprises terminating display of the image corresponding to target acceleration in a case that the absolute value of target acceleration is less than a specific value, while the following cruise control remains active.
However, Lee teaches the processing comprises terminating display of the image corresponding to target acceleration in a case that the absolute value of target acceleration is less than a specific value, while the following cruise control remains active (par. 14, "determining whether the measured acceleration is greater than or equal to a preset threshold value; and providing a planar image to the user as the AR object through the HUD system of the vehicle in response to the measured acceleration being greater than or equal to the preset threshold value"—image is only shown if the acceleration or deceleration is above a threshold, so therefore it would terminate if it is below the threshold).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Watanabe in view of Carrea to incorporate the teachings of Lee in order to improve driving safety (par. 3).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Watanabe in view of Carrea teaches the display control method of claim 8. Both Watanabe and Carrea fail to teach terminating display of the image corresponding to target acceleration in a case that the absolute value of target acceleration is less than a specific value, while the following cruise control remains active.
However, Lee teaches terminating display of the image corresponding to target acceleration in a case that the absolute value of target acceleration is less than a specific value, while the following cruise control remains active (par. 14, "determining whether the measured acceleration is greater than or equal to a preset threshold value; and providing a planar image to the user as the AR object through the HUD system of the vehicle in response to the measured acceleration being greater than or equal to the preset threshold value"—image is only shown if the acceleration or deceleration is above a threshold, so therefore it would terminate if it is below the threshold).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Watanabe in view of Carrea to incorporate the teachings of Lee in order to improve driving safety (par. 3).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Carrea, and further in view of Rothenberg (US 20190100135 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Watanabe in view of Carrea teaches the display control device of claim 1. Both Watanabe and Carrea fail to teach to continue display of the image for a specific period of time from a start of display even when the absolute value of the target acceleration becomes less than the specific value.
However, Rothenberg teaches to continue display of the image for a specific period of time from a start of display even when the absolute value of the target acceleration becomes less than the specific value (par. 57, “Such notifications may be displayed before, during, and/or after the acceleration event for some predetermined period of time such as 4 seconds or 7 seconds or more or less”).
Rothenberg teaches a system that generates a notification when an acceleration threshold is met in an autonomous vehicle. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Watanabe in view of Carrea to incorporate the teachings of Rothenberg. Rothenberg states, “a passenger would typically not have any understanding of why a vehicle took a particular action other than those which are clearly aimed at maneuvering the vehicle towards the destination. This means that sudden movements by the vehicle, even if for safety or other reasons, can cause anxiety or stress for the passenger” (par. 1), and that “the notification may be generated before the vehicle actually physically completes the acceleration event” (par. 57).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi (US 20170253181 A1) teaches a vehicle control device that displays acceleration information to the driver (see Fig. 19)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665