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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 of U.S. Application No. 18/428,657 filed on 01/31/2024 were examined. Examiner filed a non-final office action on 07/02/2025.
Applicant field remarks and amendments on 10/02/2025 have been examined. Claims 1-2 and 6-8 were amended. Claims 1-8 are presently pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 101: Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 8, Applicant argues that the amended claims are no longer directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1 because a human mind could not “acquire” the recited state of driver assistance from a driver assist controller of a vehicle, particularly when the driver assistance is provided by pulse and glide that repeats acceleration and coasting.
However, this argument is not persuasive. The amendments do not alter the fact that the claims recite a mental process, which is a grouping of abstract ideas. The core of the claims remains the acquisition and analysis of data (i.e., a “state” of driver assistance) and causing a display of that data in a particular format. Acquiring information, even when specified as originating from a “driver assist controller of a vehicle,” amounts to mere data gathering, which is extra-solution activity and does not negate the abstract nature of the concept. The recitation of “pulse and glide that repeats acceleration and coasting” describes the manner in which the driver assistance is provided but does not change the fundamental step of acquiring and displaying a state, which can be analogized to a mental observation or judgment. For example, a person could mentally note vehicle states (e.g., accelerating or coasting) based on observed data from a system, and the claims merely automate this using generic computer components without improving the functioning of the technology itself.
Furthermore, under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements (e.g., “one or more processors,” “driver assist controller,” “display”) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to applying the abstract idea on a generic computer. There is no technological improvement to vehicle control systems, displays, or any other technical field; rather, the claims use existing technology to implement the idea. The specification supports this view, as the features are described in functional terms without specific technical details (see, e.g., paragraphs [0050] and [0051] of the originally filed application, which provide generic support for acquiring and displaying states).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of vehicle user interfaces, as evidenced by the prior art (e.g., Nakamura, discussed below). Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102: Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/2025 with respect to Nakamura et al . (US20180373250A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 7and 8, Applicant argues that Nakamura fails to disclose or suggest acquiring a state of driver assistance by a driver assist controller of a vehicle, where the driver assistance is provided by pulse and glide that repeats acceleration and coasting, and the state includes an accelerating state and a coasting state; and causing a display to display a state image based on the acquired state, the state image representing the accelerating state or the coasting state and a rough indication of when each state is going to end. Applicant further argues that Nakamura’s paragraphs [0136], [0137], [0139] and Fig. 12 merely discuss degrees of driving support (manual, assist, hands off, eyes off) and indicators therefor, without disclosing accelerating or coasting states or rough indications of when states end.
However, this argument is not persuasive. Nakamura teaches a vehicle control system that acquires states of driver assistance via a controller (e.g., master control unit 100, driving support control unit 200, automatic driving control unit 300) and displays corresponding images indicating those states, including representations of acceleration and deceleration (coasting being a form of deceleration in vehicle assistance contexts). Specifically:
• Nakamura discloses acquiring and displaying states of driver assistance, where the assistance involves control of acceleration and deceleration (which encompasses repeating acceleration and coasting as part of automated driving support, such as in low-speed following or lane change events where the system repeatedly adjusts speed). For example: “The HMI control unit 120 displays an image 608 indicating that the acceleration control is being executed in a surroundings detection information display area 600 - 6 of the third screen IM3-6. The image 608 is a figure indicating the acceleration of the subject vehicle M.” (Nakamura, [0210]). Further: “The image 608 is displayed in front of the image indicating the subject vehicle M. In this case, the HMI control unit 120 may display the image 608 in a first display mode in which an outside frame is given to the image 608 at a first timing before the subject vehicle M accelerates and display the image 608 in a second display mode in which the inside of the outside frame of the image is colored at a second timing before the subject vehicle M accelerates.” (Nakamura, [0210]).
• Regarding the coasting state (interpreted as deceleration in the context of driver assistance without active braking): “At the time of acceleration, the HMI control unit 120 may display an animation in which the image 608 moves in the progress direction of the subject vehicle. Conversely, at the time of a deceleration, the HMI control unit 120 may display an animation in which the image 608 moves toward the subject vehicle.” (Nakamura, [0210]). This teaches representing the accelerating state or coasting state, with the animation providing a rough indication of when each state is going to end (e.g., via movement progression).
• Nakamura’s degrees of driving support (e.g., first, second, third degrees) include states where the controller provides assistance by controlling acceleration/deceleration repeatedly, and displays indicators therefor: “The HMI control unit 120 displays the information indicating the degree of the driving support (including the automatic driving) executable by the subject vehicle M, in the driving support state display area 620 - 1 . In the example of FIG. 12 , an image 621 indicating three indicators “Assist”, “Hands Off”, and “Eyes Off” is shown as the information indicating the degree of the driving support. The degree of the driving support is expressed by each indicator alone or a combination of a plurality of indicators. The indicator “Assist” is an indicator indicating that the state is in a state in which the driving support of the first degree is being executed (an on state) or a state in which the transition to the driving support of the first degree is possible (an off state).” (Nakamura, [0136]). “The indicator “Hands Off” is an indicator indicating that the state is in a state in which the driving support of the second degree is being executed (an on state) or a state in which the transition to the driving support of the second degree is possible (an off state).” (Nakamura, [0137]). “The indicator “Eyes Off” is an indicator indicating that the state is in a state in which the driving support of the third degree is being executed (an on state) or a state in which the transition to the driving support of the third degree is possible (an off state).” (Nakamura, [0138]). “As the indicators, indicators corresponding to each of the state in which the driving support is being executed and the state in which the transition to the driving support is possible may be prepared. It is possible to grasp whether the driving supports of each degree are being executed or the state is in the state in which the transitions to the driving supports of each degree are possible by a requested action notification image 622 that will be described later. For example, in a case where the driving support of the corresponding degree is being executed, each indicator is highlighted. In a case where the transition to the driving support of the corresponding degree is possible, each indicator is displayed in a gray out state. In the example of FIG. 12 , since all of the indicators are displayed in a gray out state, FIG. 12 shows that the driving support of any degree is not executed, that is, the manual driving is performed.” (Nakamura, [0139]).
• Regarding Fig. 12: “FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating an example of a third screen IM3-1 and a fourth screen IM4-1 displayed by the operation of the main switch 412 . The third screen IM3-1 is a screen displayed by the first display unit 450 , and the fourth screen IM4-1 is a screen projected by the HUD 460 . The same applies to a third screen IM3-X (X is an arbitrary natural number) and a fourth screen IM-X shown in the following drawings. The third screen IM3-X and the fourth screen IM4-X are continuously displayed in a state in which the driving support is executable and in a state in which the driving support is being executed.” (Nakamura, [0133]). This figure illustrates display of driver assistance states, including when support is active (encompassing acceleration/coasting via control units).
The “pulse and glide” is not a positively recited structural limitation but describes the functional manner of assistance, which Nakamura teaches through its repeated acceleration/deceleration in support modes (e.g., following travel with speed adjustments). Claims 7 and 8 are rejected for similar reasons, as they recite analogous features. The dependent claims remain rejected as they do not add patentably distinct limitations and are taught by Nakamura as set forth in the previous Office Action.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to the concept of tracking and displaying vehicle trajectory and surroundings. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The Examiner will further explain in view of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance:
Claims 1 is directed to a vehicle display device (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claims 1, 7 and 8 recites: A vehicle display device comprising one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to
acquire a state of driver assistance by a driver assist controller of a vehicle, the driver assistance being provided by pulse and glide that repeats acceleration and coasting, and the state of the driver assistance including an accelerating state and a coasting state;
and cause a display to display a state image based on the acquired state of the driver assistance, the state image representing an accelerating state or a coasting state of the driver assistance and a rough indication of when each state is going to end.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “acquire, …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle display device comprising one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to
acquire a state of driver assistance by a driver assist controller of a vehicle, the driver assistance being provided by pulse and glide that repeats acceleration and coasting, and the state of the driver assistance including an accelerating state and a coasting state;
and cause a display to display a state image based on the acquired state of the driver assistance, the state image representing an accelerating state or a coasting state of the driver assistance and a rough indication of when each state is going to end.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “Processor” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the acquire, by a processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer processor.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “ processor” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 1, 7 and 8.
Therefore, claims 2-6 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al . (US20180373250A1).
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 8, Nakamura discloses A vehicle display device (“The navigation HMI 52 includes a display device,” [0059]) comprising one or more processors (“Each of the first control unit 320 and the second control unit 340 is realized by a processor such as a CPU or a GPU executing a program.” [0082]),
the one or more processors configured to acquire a state of driver assistance by a driver assist controller of a vehicle, the driver assistance being provided by pulse and glide that repeats acceleration and coasting, and the state of the driver assistance including an accelerating state and a coasting state. Nakamura discloses acquiring and displaying states of driver assistance, where the assistance involves control of acceleration and deceleration (which encompasses repeating acceleration and coasting as part of automated driving support, such as in low-speed following or lane change events where the system repeatedly adjusts speed). For example: “The HMI control unit 120 displays an image 608 indicating that the acceleration control is being executed in a surroundings detection information display area 600 - 6 of the third screen IM3-6. The image 608 is a figure indicating the acceleration of the subject vehicle M.” (Nakamura, [0210]).
Further: “The image 608 is displayed in front of the image indicating the subject vehicle M. In this case, the HMI control unit 120 may display the image 608 in a first display mode in which an outside frame is given to the image 608 at a first timing before the subject vehicle M accelerates and display the image 608 in a second display mode in which the inside of the outside frame of the image is colored at a second timing before the subject vehicle M accelerates.” (Nakamura, [0210]).
Regarding the coasting state (interpreted as deceleration in the context of driver assistance without active braking): “At the time of acceleration, the HMI control unit 120 may display an animation in which the image 608 moves in the progress direction of the subject vehicle. Conversely, at the time of a deceleration, the HMI control unit 120 may display an animation in which the image 608 moves toward the subject vehicle.” (Nakamura, [0210]). This teaches representing the accelerating state or coasting state, with the animation providing a rough indication of when each state is going to end (e.g., via movement progression).
(“The degree of the driving support is expressed by each indicator alone or a combination of a plurality of indicators. The indicator “Assist” is an indicator indicating that the state is in a state in which the driving support of the first degree is being executed (an on state) or a state in which the transition to the driving support of the first degree is possible (an off state).” [0136 -0137]),
and cause a display to display a state image based on the acquired state of the driver assistance, the state image representing an accelerating state or a coasting state of the driver assistance and a rough indication of when each state is going to end (“in a case where the driving support of the corresponding degree is being executed, each indicator is highlighted. In a case where the transition to the driving support of the corresponding degree is possible, each indicator is displayed in a gray out state. In the example of FIG. 12, since all of the indicators are displayed in a gray out state, FIG. 12 shows that the driving support of any degree is not executed, that is, the manual driving is performed.” [0139]).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura discloses The vehicle display device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display a vehicle image representing the vehicle and line images in front of and behind the vehicle image (“In the following description, a surroundings vehicle that travels immediately before the lane change target position TAs in the adjacent lane will be referred to as a front reference vehicle mB, and a surroundings vehicle that travels immediately after the lane change target position TAs in the adjacent lane will be referred to as a rear reference vehicle mC.” [0092] see also Fig.14 and Fig. 23),
and to cause the display to display the rough indication by changing a relative position of the vehicle image between the line images(“In the following description, a surroundings vehicle that travels immediately before the lane change target position TAs in the adjacent lane will be referred to as a front reference vehicle mB, and a surroundings vehicle that travels immediately after the lane change target position TAs in the adjacent lane will be referred to as a rear reference vehicle mC.” [0092] see also Fig.14 and Fig. 23).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura discloses The vehicle display device according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to highlight the line image in front of the vehicle image when in the accelerating state (“the HMI control unit 120 displays the image indicating the road shape in front of the subject vehicle M acquired from the second map information 62, the image indicating the subject vehicle M recognized by the subject vehicle position recognition unit 322, the image indicating the surroundings vehicle m recognized by the outside space recognition unit 321,” [0161]),
and to cause the display to highlight the line image behind the vehicle image when in the coasting state (“the HMI control unit 120 displays a display mode in which the inside of the outside frame of the image 604 is colored in the surroundings detection information display area 600-5. The HMI control unit 120 may display the outside frame of each of the plurality of areas divided in the image 604 by an animation so that the outside frames are sequentially highlighted along the course change direction of the subject vehicle M.” [0181]).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura discloses The vehicle display device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display a gauge image as the state image, the gauge image representing the accelerating state or the coasting state (See at least FIG. 14).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura discloses The vehicle display device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display an arrow image according to the accelerating state or the coasting state as the state image(See at least FIG. 16-17).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura discloses The vehicle display device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the display to display a vehicle image representing the vehicle, and to display an animation image as the state image on the display, the animation image being an image that moves along a side of the vehicle image according to the accelerating state or the coasting state(See at least FIG. 24).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/AA/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668