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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/31/2024; 07/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hada (US 20100123778).
Regarding claim 1:
Hada discloses: an information processing device comprising one or more processors (FIG. 1, ¶ 22 “ The present invention discloses an integrated visual display system (IVDS) for a motor vehicle “); configured to,
when an object present in a direction of travel of a vehicle traveling on a road is detected (¶ 23 “The IVDS can include a plurality of proximity sensors that are operable to detect an external object. It is appreciated that the IVDS and the plurality of proximity sensors are located and/or attached on/within a motor vehicle…an external object can be another motor vehicle, a lane marker on the road or highway that the motor vehicle is traveling on”; ¶ 25 “…the IVDS is operable to receive external object proximity location information (EOPLI) from at least part of the plurality of proximity sensors and illuminate one or more of the plurality of grid sections on the single display screen as a function of where the external object is located relative the motor vehicle having the IVDS, hereafter referred to as the "original motor vehicle" or "original vehicle"”; ¶ 27 “The x columns of the y grid sections are arranged such that they visually represent lanes of a road or highway that the motor vehicle could be traveling on. In addition, the y rows of x grid sections are arranged such that they visually represent a range of distances in front, beside and behind the motor vehicle”),
and a positional relation between the vehicle and the object is in a predetermined state (¶ 30 “In addition, the IVDS is operable to illuminate either the left lane marker line or the right lane marker line a second color when the motor vehicle comes within a predetermined distance of the left lane marker or the right lane marker, respectively, without having a turn signal on”; ¶ 46 “…if a motor vehicle is in front of the original motor vehicle by a distance of between 150 to 300 meters, then the IVDS 10 is operable to illuminate grid section 112, 114 or 116 depending upon whether the other vehicle is located to the left, directly in front or to the right, respectively, of the original motor vehicle”; ¶ 60 “Other types of display screens can be used including those not yet available, since the scope of the invention is related to providing external object proximity location information to a driver on a single screen. As such, any display screen falls within the scope of the present invention. The IVDS 10 a system can integrate autonomous systems and cooperative systems such that potential collision hazards from external objects up to 300 meters (984 feet) in distance from the motor vehicle can be avoided”);
in a road image depicting the road that is displayed on a display inside the vehicle, display an object image depicting the object at a position that reflects an actual position of the object (FIGS. 2 - 14; ¶ 24 “The IVDS can also include a single visual display screen that is located in a driver's line of sight when the driver is seated in a driver seat of the motor vehicle.”; ¶ 26 “…If a cooperative system is engaged with the IVDS, the location of other external objects such as traffic signals, infrastructure objects, in addition to other motor vehicles, can be displayed to the driver”; ¶ 43 “…FIG. 2, an enlarged view of the single display screen 50 is shown. The display screen 50 can include a symbol 150 that is representative of the original motor vehicle, the symbol 150 located on a reference grid section 134.”).
Regarding claim 2:
Hada discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Hada further discloses: wherein the one or more processors are configured to change the position of the object image, according to change in the actual position of the object ((FIGS. 2 - 14; ¶ 46 “…the original motor vehicle can be parked or moving along a road or highway with the plurality of proximity sensors detecting and/or gathering information regarding the external surroundings/environment of the original motor vehicle. As such, if another motor vehicle comes within the vicinity of the original motor vehicle, its location can be shown on the display 50 by illuminating one of the grid sections. For example and for illustrative purposes only, if a motor vehicle is in front of the original motor vehicle by a distance of between 150 to 300 meters, then the IVDS 10 is operable to illuminate grid section 112, 114 or 116 depending upon whether the other vehicle is located to the left, directly in front or to the right, respectively, of the original motor vehicle. Likewise, if a motor vehicle is detected within a range of 10 to 150 meters (33 to 492 feet) in front of the original motor vehicle, then the grid section 122, 124 or 126 is illuminated depending upon whether the other motor vehicle is located to the left, directly in front or to the right, respectively, of the original motor vehicle”; ¶ 52 “…as the vehicle V1 passes beyond the vehicle V, grid section 132 is de-illuminated and grid section 122 is illuminated. And finally, when the vehicle V1 moves from the lane that is to the left of the vehicle V into the same lane that vehicle V is driving, grid section 122 is de-illuminated and grid section 114 is illuminated. In this manner, the IVDS 10 provides the driver of the original motor vehicle V with proximity information on the vehicle V1 as it approaches and eventually passes”).
Regarding claim 3:
Hada discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
PNG
media_image1.png
484
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hada further discloses: wherein the one or more processors are configured to change contents of the object image depending on whether the actual position of the object is outside of the road or in the road (FIGS 13-14.
).
Regarding claim 4:
Hada discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
PNG
media_image2.png
484
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hada further discloses: wherein the one or more processors are configured to display the object image in a more emphasized way when the actual position of the object is in the road, as compared to when the object is outside of the road (FIGS 13-14.
).
Regarding claims 6-7: the claims limitations are similar to those of claim 1; therefore, rejected in the same manner as applied above.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hada (US 20100123778) in view of Kundu (US 20200211226).
Regarding claim 5:
Hada discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Hada does not specifically teach: wherein the one or more processors are configured to display the object image such that actual dimensions of the object are reflected.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shibata teaches: wherein the one or more processors are configured to display the object image such that actual dimensions of the object are reflected (¶ 19 “…automatically calibrate parameters of a camera of a vision sensor system onboard a vehicle to realize precise 3D measurement of object size (e.g., height and width) and a distance of the object from the camera”; ¶ 95 “…the one or more processors may send, to a display, an indication of the size of the detected object so that corresponding graphics may be overlaid on one or more images of the road in real time or near-real time”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hada to incorporate the teachings of Kundu by including: wherein the one or more processors are configured to display the object image such that actual dimensions of the object are reflected in order to improve the driver’s ability to comprehend the size and this seriousness of hazards on the road.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASSIM MAHROUKA whose telephone number is (571)272-2945. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/WASSIM MAHROUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665