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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/20/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites; “in response to switching from the manual driving mode to the autonomous driving mode
the first display mode being selected…” which likely should have a comma or semicolon or similar between “driving mode” and “the first display mode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant removed the identified indefinite material, and thus the related 112b rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osato (JP2014151879A) in view of Yamada (US20220093050A1).
Regarding claim 1, Osato teaches;
A vehicle display control device mounted on a vehicle (taught as a vehicle driving condition display device, paragraph 0010) that includes a display device provided in a vehicle cabin of the vehicle, and that is configured to switch a driving mode between a manual driving mode and an autonomous driving mode (taught as having a means to switch whether or not to execute driving assistance control, paragraph 0015), the vehicle display control device comprising:
a processor (taught as a display control unit, element 11, paragraph 0014); and
a memory storing executable instructions (taught as the display control unit including storage processing for display, paragraph 0014) that cause the processor to change a display mode of the display device from a first display mode to a second display mode in response to switching from the manual driving mode to the autonomous driving mode (taught as a display method distinguishing between vehicle speed data and vehicle speed control based on whether [driving assistance control, such as speed/cruise control] is performed, paragraph 0043; this indicator allows the driver to visually understand the relationship between the speed and the adaptive speed control, and thus changes the display based on the vehicle mode [manual and adaptive vehicle speed control]; in one mode, the data is displayed in one color, and in the other, the data is displayed in another to provide easy identification between the modes; indicating whether driving assistance controls are currently being executed/activated, paragraph 0029, which indicates that when they are being activated, one display information is shown, while when they are inactive, it is not shown)
the first display mode being selected when the driving mode is the manual driving mode (taught as a display method distinguishing between vehicle speed data and vehicle speed control based on whether [driving assistance control, such as speed/cruise control] is performed, paragraph 0043 with indication whether driver assistance controls are currently being executed, paragraph 0029), and including
a first display element that indicates a vehicle speed of the vehicle (shown as a vehicle speed display screen, e.g. Fig 10),
the second display mode being selected when the driving mode is the autonomous driving mode (taught as a display method distinguishing between vehicle speed data and vehicle speed control based on whether [driving assistance control, such as speed/cruise control] is performed, paragraph 0043 with indication whether driver assistance controls are currently being executed, paragraph 0029) and displaying
a fourth display element that indicates an energy savings amount achieved by traveling in the autonomous driving mode the driving mode is switched from the manual driving mode to the autonomous driving mode (taught as conveying the effect of the drive support control, including the fuel consumption, paragraph 0055, with a relationship between speed control and fuel consumption displayed, paragraph 0045).
While the specific ‘mode’ [e.g. which application window, workspace, screen], position, and style of elements displayed are not explicitly indicated/shown in Osato, such variations are a mere matter of design choice of printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). As the indicators/elements do not perform any recited function, they do not adequately indicate a functional relationship, and merely serve to convey information to a human reader, essentially independent of the computer environment, and thus the claim elements regarding positioning, style, and which ‘mode’ of the display (without any indication of functional relationships) are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer.
To reiterate, because there is no indication of a functional relationship, the following elements are NOT given patentable weight, or merely require design choice, simple optimization to implement;
in the first display mode, the first display element, the second display element, and the third display element are displayed in a central region of the display device; and
in the second display mode, the fourth display element is displayed in the central region of the display device.
However, Osato does not explicitly teach;
a second display element that indicates a shift position of the vehicle, and
a third display element that shows a power meter.
Yamada teaches; a second display element that indicates a shift position of the vehicle (taught as a shift indication, element 403a, shown in Fig 3 and 4; which indicates transmission such as drive, park etc.), and
a third display element that shows a power meter (taught as a power meter, element 402a, shown in Fig 3 and 4).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a shift indicator and power meter as taught by Yamada in the system taught by Osato in order to improve display communication. Providing such information to a driver further allows for comprehension of important vehicle state/functions; Yamada even indicates that a shift indication and power meter is provided even in the simplified display mode designed to reduce information load on a driver (paragraph 0031), indicating the importance/utility of the information.
Regarding claim 2, Osato as modified by Yamada teaches;
The vehicle display control device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Osato further teaches; wherein the first display mode further includes a fifth display element that indicates a cruising range of the vehicle during travel in the manual driving mode (taught as visually displaying drivable distance, such as in the form of a graph, paragraph 0052).
While Osato does not explicitly teach; “that is displayed outside the central region of the display device”, such variations are a mere matter of design choice of printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). As the indicators/elements do not perform any recited function, they do not adequately indicate a functional relationship, and merely serve to convey information to a human reader, essentially independent of the computer environment, and thus the claim elements regarding positioning, style, and which ‘mode’ of the display (without any indication of functional relationships) are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer.
To reiterate, because there is no indication of a functional relationship, the following elements are NOT given patentable weight, or merely require design choice, simple optimization to implement;
displayed outside the central region of the display device.
Claim(s) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osato (JP2014151879A) as modified by Yamada (US20220093050A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ichikawa (US20160272220A1).
Regarding claim 3, Osato as modified by Yamada teaches;
The vehicle display control device according to claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection). However, Osato does not explicitly teach; wherein the vehicle is an electrified vehicle that includes a motor for travel and a battery that supplies power to the motor,
the second display mode includes a third display mode, the third display mode including information related to the battery, the fourth display element, and a sixth display element that indicates a cruising range during travel of the vehicle using the power of the battery, and
the information related to the battery, the fourth display element, and the sixth display element are displayed in the central display area in the third display mode.
Ichikawa teaches; wherein the vehicle is an electrified vehicle that includes a motor for travel and a battery that supplies power to the motor (taught as a plug in hybrid vehicle [PHV], element 5, paragraph 0049, including a chargeable battery, element 10, which supplies power to, for example, an electric motor, paragraph 0053),
the second display mode includes a third display mode, the third display mode including information related to the battery taught as displaying electricity efficiency driving in electric mode, paragraph 0088), the fourth display element (taught as displaying electricity efficiency, which represents a distance that can be traveled per unit energy, paragraph 0091, while running in the battery powered [CD, or charge depleting] mode, paragraph 0094), and a sixth display element that indicates a cruising range during travel of the vehicle using the power of the battery (taught as determining a fuel/electricity efficiency, which indicates an amount representing a distance that can be traveled per unit of energy, paragraph 0091), and
While Ichikawa does not explicitly teach “the information related to the battery, the fourth display element, and the sixth display element are displayed in the central display area in the third display mode”, such variations are a mere matter of design choice of printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). As the indicators/elements do not perform any recited function, they do not adequately indicate a functional relationship, and merely serve to convey information to a human reader, essentially independent of the computer environment, and thus the claim elements regarding positioning, style, and which ‘mode’ of the display (without any indication of functional relationships) are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer.
To reiterate, because there is no indication of a functional relationship, the following elements are NOT given patentable weight, or merely require design choice, simple optimization to implement;
the information related to the battery, the fourth display element, and the sixth display element are displayed in the central display area in the third display mode.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Osato in an electric powered vehicle, such as suggested by Ichikawa, to improve information display. Osato already teaches the use of comparing fuel efficiency differences between, for example, adaptive cruise control and manual driving (paragraph 0045), and vehicle drivable distance/range (paragraph 0052). Displaying the more useful information would be more convenient for the driver as suggested by Ichikawa (paragraph 0085). Additionally, simply replacing the fuel economy/efficiency of a gas vehicle with the electric economy/efficiency would be an obvious variation based on the relevant power source. To reiterate, one would take the teachings of Osato in displaying fuel economy/efficiency of a gas vehicle in a vehicle with electric/battery power capabilities as taught by Ichikawa in order to improve convenience and flexibility of the system.
Regarding claim 4, Osato as modified by Yamada and Ichikawa teaches;
The vehicle display control device according to claim 3 (see claim 3 rejection). Osato further teaches; wherein the executable instructions further cause the processor to automatically set the display mode of the display device to the third display mode when the driving mode is changed to the autonomous driving mode (taught as a display method distinguishing between vehicle speed data and vehicle speed control based on whether [driving assistance control, such as speed/cruise control] is performed, paragraph 0043 with indication whether driver assistance controls are currently being executed, paragraph 0029); and
change the display mode of the display device to the first display mode in response to the operation of the display mode changing switch when the driving mode is the autonomous driving mode (taught as a display method distinguishing between vehicle speed data and vehicle speed control based on whether [driving assistance control, such as speed/cruise control] is performed, paragraph 0043 with indication whether driver assistance controls are currently being executed, paragraph 0029).
While Osato does not explicitly teach the different display modes, such variations are a mere matter of design choice of printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). As the indicators/elements do not perform any recited function, they do not adequately indicate a functional relationship, and merely serve to convey information to a human reader, essentially independent of the computer environment, and thus the claim elements regarding positioning, style, and which ‘mode’ of the display (without any indication of functional relationships) are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer.
Regarding claim 5, Osato as modified by Yamada and Ichikawa teaches;
The vehicle display control device according to claim 3 (see claim 3 rejection). Osato further teaches; wherein the second display mode includes a fourth display mode, the fourth display mode including environmental information and economic information (taught as conveying the effect of the drive support control, including the fuel consumption, paragraph 0055, with a relationship between speed control and fuel consumption displayed, paragraph 0045), the fourth display element, and, wherein
the executable instructions further cause the processor to automatically set the display mode of the display device to the fourth display mode when the driving mode is changed to the autonomous driving mode (taught as a display method distinguishing between vehicle speed data and vehicle speed control based on whether [driving assistance control, such as speed/cruise control] is performed, paragraph 0043, with indication whether driver assistance controls are currently being executed, paragraph 0029); and change the display mode of the display device to the first display mode in response to the operation of the display mode changing switch when the driving mode is the autonomous driving mode (taught as a display method distinguishing between vehicle speed data and vehicle speed control based on whether [driving assistance control, such as speed/cruise control] is performed, paragraph 0043, with indication whether driver assistance controls are currently being executed, paragraph 0029), and
the environmental information and economic information, the fourth display element, and the seventh display element are displayed in the central display area in the fourth display mode.
While Osato does not explicitly teach the enumerated display modes, such variations are a mere matter of design choice of printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). As the indicators/elements do not perform any recited function, they do not adequately indicate a functional relationship, and merely serve to convey information to a human reader, essentially independent of the computer environment, and thus the claim elements regarding positioning, style, and which ‘mode’ of the display (without any indication of functional relationships) are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer.
However, Osato does not explicitly teach; a seventh display element that indicates an electrical efficiency of the vehicle.
Ichikawa teaches; an image indicating an electrical efficiency (taught as displaying the electricity efficiency, paragraph 0088).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Osato in an electric powered vehicle, such as suggested by Ichikawa, to improve information display. Osato already teaches the use of comparing fuel efficiency differences between, for example, adaptive cruise control and manual driving (paragraph 0045), and vehicle drivable distance/range (paragraph 0052). Displaying the more useful information would be more convenient for the driver as suggested by Ichikawa (paragraph 0085). Additionally, simply replacing the fuel economy/efficiency of a gas vehicle with the electric economy/efficiency would be an obvious variation based on the relevant power source. To reiterate, one would take the teachings of Osato in displaying fuel economy/efficiency of a gas vehicle in a vehicle with electric/battery power capabilities as taught by Ichikawa in order to improve convenience and flexibility of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 7-9 of the remarks that Osato does not address amended claims 1-2.
The examiner agrees that Osato does not address all the amended material, specifically in regards to a power meter and a shift position. Therefore, the previous rejection is withdrawn. However, a new rejection in light of Yamada is made above.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the remarks that Ichikawa fails to remedy the deficiencies of Osato.
The examiner agrees that Ichikawa does not address all the amended material, specifically in regards to a power meter and a shift position. Therefore, the previous rejection is withdrawn. However, a new rejection in light of Yamada is made above.
Applicant argues on page 10 that the dependent claims are allowable for the same reasons as the independent claims are allowable.
In light of the above argument and rejections, this argument is rendered moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further displaying energy differences based on autonomous vehicle features; US20140046578A1
Systems that discuss Eco coach, which analyze and present data to demonstrate and encourage energy saving behaviors and settings, similar to the inventive idea of presenting energy savings to a user based on actions including autonomous driving and pertaining to the independent claims; US20230124291A1 (e.g. paragraph 0059)
NHTSA § 571.102 Standard No. 102; Transmission shift position sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, 2004;
Related to claim 1, the NHTSA details that shift indicators are required by standards/law; for example, the NHTSA outlines in Section S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102:
“Except as specified in S3.1.4.3, if the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist:
(a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted.
(b) The transmission is not in park.”
Additionally, S3.1.4.4 states:
“Effective September 23, 1991, all of the information required to be displayed by S3.1.4.1 or S3.1.4.2 shall be displayed in view of the driver in a single location. At the option of the manufacturer, redundant displays providing some or all of the information may be provided.” (emphasis added, see page 2 of the provided excerpt).
Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include a shift indicator.
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 GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1:00-9:00.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights