Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments filed December 23, 2025 regarding rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (US 20210016793A1) in view of Ikeda et al. (US 20200086890A1) have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed December 23, 2025 regarding rejection of claims 11-12 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
3. Applicant argues that Yamaguchi and Ikeda fails to describe with respect to amended independent claim 1 a varying graphical attributes of a planned travel route of a vehicle, including at least one of shape or pattern, between a lane change with an object of passing a vehicle driving in front and lane changes with objects other than passing.
However, examiner argues that claim 1 is rejected with Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda, not in separation of one or the other. Yamaguchi in Fig. 11 shows passing of a stopping, not already stopped, vehicle with cross marks, i.e. graphical shape and patterns, to indicate that straight line path is no longer viable and form a new guidance marks for a new planned path to bypass (see [0097]). Figs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12 also show different graphical shapes and patterns to change lanes, show image of steering wheel and tire orientations, as well as graphical shape and pattern of guidance marks and a highlight to change lane behind a vehicle and wait, which all amounts to varying graphical attributes lane changes with objects other than passing. Ikeda teaches in [0085]-[0091], Figs 6, 7, and 8 of graphical shape and pattern of a vehicle changing lane with travel path guidance and lane change image in shape of arrows, to provide planned travel route of a vehicle to pass a vehicle driving in front. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify varying graphical attributes of cross marks to indicate straight line as no longer being viable and forming a new guidance marks for a new planned path, and different patterns of lane change paths, different images of steering wheel and tire orientations, with highlight to stop behind a vehicle after a lane change of Yamaguchi by incorporating teaching of Ikeda such that overtaking a vehicle driving in front is shown as part of varying graphical attributes of Yamaguchi through having crossed marks to indicate that straight path is no longer safe and a new pattern of planned dotted route is formed to overtake the driving vehicle in front. Yamaguchi and Ikeda can also combine to show arrow shapes to indicate change of lanes as well.
Therefore, rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 is maintained and argument made against amended independent claim 1 is unpersuasive.
4. Applicant argues that claims 11 and 12 recites substantially similar features with respect to amended independent claim 1, and patentable over cited references for at least the same reasons as amended independent claim 1.
However, examiner argues that, as it is with claim 1, the references of Yamaguchi and Ikeda still addresses the amended aspect of the claims and do not overcome the rejection under 35 USC 103. Therefore, rejection of claim 11 and 12 under 35 USC 103 are maintained and argument made against amended independent claim 11 and 12 are unpersuasive.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
5. Claim 1, 4, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being anticipated by Yamaguchi et al. (US20210016793A1) in view of Ikeda et al. (US 20200086890A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi et al. teaches a vehicle display control device (see Yamaguchi [0052]-[0077] in general) comprising;
a processor (see Yamaguchi [0058] and Fig 2 where display apparatus 1 includes optical apparatus 10 and control apparatus 20, which includes a central processing unit 202, i.e. a processor) configured to,
determines whether or not a lane change is necessary based on at least one of a planned travel route or area conditions (see Yamaguchi [0079] and Fig. 5 where display apparatus 1 illustrates the guidance marks 41 to change lane on a two-lane road based on information from navigation device 400; see also Yamaguchi [0101]-[0104] and Fig. 12 where an image control unit 250 put guidance marks 41, on a planned path, for a route change lanes to the right at a predetermined timing based on information acquired from vehicle navigation device, and speed and position of the vehicle.) and,
in a case in which a lane change is necessary, displays information relating to the lane change in a display area in a vicinity of a driver's seat (see Yamaguchi [0050]-[0052] and Figs 1A and 1B where display apparatus 1 is an in-vehicle head-up display (HUD) and images are projected onto a projection area 311 of windshield 310. The display apparatus 1 shows change lane guidance marks 41 as said above and the windshield 310 is in vicinity of a driver’s seat as can be seen on Figs 1A+1B),
Yamaguchi shows also in [0061] where CPU 202 controls the overall image data processing of the display apparatus 1, which also has the image control unit 250. In addition, Yamaguchi in Fig. 11 shows passing of a stopping, not already stopped, vehicle with cross marks, i.e. graphical shape and patterns, to indicate that straight line path is no longer viable and form a new guidance marks for a new planned path to bypass or overtake a stopping or slowing vehicle (see [0097]). Figs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12 also show different graphical shapes and patterns to change lanes, show image of steering wheel and tire orientations, as well as graphical shape and pattern of guidance marks and a highlight to change lane behind a vehicle and wait, which all amounts to varying graphical attributes of lane changes with objects other than passing.
Yamaguchi alone does particularly not teach:
the processor is configured to vary graphical attributes of the planned travel route of the vehicle, including at least one of shape or pattern, between a lane change with an object of passing a vehicle driving in front and lane changes with objects other than passing.
However, Ikeda does teach a display system with a recognizer, which is a controller realized by a central processing unit (CPU) that recognizes an object that includes vehicles such as motorcycles and four wheeled vehicles, and determines the object state, including its position, speed, acceleration or jerk, etc. (see [0049], [0052] and [0057]). Ikeda then teaches in [0085]-[0091], Figs 6, 7, and 8 of graphical shape and pattern of a vehicle changing lane with travel path guidance and lane change image in shape of arrows, to provide planned travel route of a vehicle to pass and overtake a vehicle driving too slowly in front.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify varying graphical attributes of cross marks to indicate straight line as no longer being viable and forming a new guidance marks for a new planned path, and different patterns of lane change paths, different images of steering wheel and tire orientations, with highlight to stop behind a vehicle after a lane change of Yamaguchi by incorporating teaching of Ikeda such that overtaking a vehicle driving in front is shown as part of varying graphical attributes of Yamaguchi through having crossed marks to indicate that straight path is no longer safe and a new pattern of planned dotted route is formed to overtake the driving vehicle in front. Yamaguchi and Ikeda can also combine to show arrow shapes to indicate change of lanes as well.
The motivation to have a display with a recognizer that varies graphical shape and patterns to show when host vehicle is approaching to a front vehicle driving too slowly and a lane change to overtake along a planned travel route with regards to the front vehicle is that, as indicated by Ikeda, this would allow for a detailed information on a lane change, such as state of vehicle in front and seeing where a lane change is happening, which would allow an occupant to ascertain purpose of lane change and give higher sense of security to the occupant (see [0087], [0104] and [0005]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda teaches the vehicle display control device of claim 1(see Yamaguchi [0052]-[0077] in general as shown in claim 1), wherein
the processor displays an object of the lane change in the display area using at least one of characters or an icon (see Yamaguchi Figs 11-12, [0098] and [0102] where there are auxiliary images 43B and 47 to indicate vehicle to pass or be aware of. In the two Figures of 11 and 12, there are icon and characters of exclamation and “waiting” respectively to display presence of an object or vehicle).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda teaches a vehicle display control system (see Yamaguchi [0052]-[0077] in general) comprising:
the vehicle display control device of claim 1(see Yamaguchi [0052]-[0077] in general as shown in claim 1); and
a display device that displays the information relating to the lane change in the display area (see Yamaguchi [0050]-[0052] and Figs 1A and 1B where display apparatus 1 is an in-vehicle head-up display (HUD) and images are projected onto a projection area 311 of windshield 310; see also Yamaguchi [0079] and Fig. 5 where display apparatus 1 illustrates the guidance marks 41 to change lane on a two-lane road based on information from navigation device 400).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda. teaches the vehicle display control system of claim 8 (see Yamaguchi [0052]-[0077] in general as shown in claim 8), wherein
the display device is a head-up display device capable of projecting images onto a windshield glass (see Yamaguchi [0050]-[0052] and Figs 1A and 1B where display apparatus 1 is an in-vehicle head-up display (HUD) and images are projected onto a projection area 311 of windshield 310).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda teaches a vehicle including the vehicle display control system of claim 9 (see Yamaguchi Figs 1A-1B and [0050]-[0051] where it is indicated that automobile 300, i.e. vehicle, is a movable body mounted with a display apparatus 1 with projection area 311 on windshield 310).
Regarding claim 11, the claim recite a vehicle display control method that comprises components, a processor, configured to perform the method(s) recited in claim 1. The cited portions of Yamaguchi et al. and Ikeda et al. used in the rejections of claims 1 teach where the method(s) are performed using a system comprising the components recited in claim 11. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recite a non-transitory computer storage readable medium comprising instruction that, when executed by a computer, perform the method(s) recited in claim 1. The cited portions of Yamaguchi et al. and Ikeda et al. used in the rejections of claims 1 teach where the method(s) are performed using a processor and a computer readable storage medium. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 1.
Regarding claim 13, Ikeda teaches a driving control devices that has a display system with a recognizer, which is a controller realized by a central processing unit (CPU), that recognizes an object that includes vehicles such as motorcycles and four wheeled vehicles, and determines the object state, including its position, speed, acceleration or jerk, etc. Once an overtake event is determined to be necessary with regards to information of a vehicle in front, i.e. vehicle driving too slowly and has come within a predetermined distance, then host vehicle performs a lane change to an adjacent lane, overtake, or pass, and change lane to return (see [0049], [0052] and [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify a display apparatus of a vehicle displaying different information of lane change due to overpassing a stopped vehicle or changing lanes due to other reasons, such as a hindering object on a road, of Yamaguchi by incorporating teaching of Ikeda such that the display apparatus of a vehicle display control device also determines a lane change necessary when vehicle driving in front of host vehicle is determined to be getting too close, i.e. driving too slowly.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Ikeda in regards to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Ikeda teaches a driving control devices that has a display system with a recognizer, which is a controller realized by a central processing unit (CPU), that recognizes an object that includes vehicles such as motorcycles and four wheeled vehicles, and determines the object state, including its position, speed, and acceleration. Once an overtake event is determined to be necessary with regards to information of a vehicle driving in front, i.e. vehicle driving too slowly and has come within a predetermined distance, then host vehicle performs a lane change to an adjacent lane, overtake, or pass, and change lane to return (see [0049], [0052] and [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify a display apparatus of a vehicle displaying different information of lane change due to overpassing a stopped vehicle or changing lanes due to other reasons, such as a hindering object on a road, of Yamaguchi by incorporating teaching of Ikeda such that the display apparatus of a vehicle display control device also determines a lane change necessary when vehicle driving in front of host vehicle is determined to be getting too close, i.e. driving too slowly.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Ikeda in regards to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Ikeda teaches vehicle display control that has displays provided at front of a driver’s seat, at an instrument panel, and including a head-up display (HUD) device to display information of host vehicle, such as speed, fuel, traveling distance, etc. as well as different scenes that shows target trajectory for lane change to overtake, or pass, a vehicle driving in front (see Fig. 6 and [0085], and Fig. 2 and [0037]-[0038]). Note also that in Fig. 6 and [0085]-[0086] of Ikeda shows an icon image LCS and trajectory image of TA2 to indicate passing the vehicle driving in front.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify a display apparatus of a vehicle displaying different information of lane change due to overpassing a stopped vehicle or changing lanes due to other reasons, such as a hindering object on a road, of Yamaguchi by incorporating teaching of Ikeda such that the display apparatus of a vehicle display control device also determines and displays a lane change necessary when vehicle driving in front of host vehicle is determined to be getting too close, i.e. driving too slowly.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Ikeda in regards to claim 1.
6. Claim 3 is rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda in further view of Kumon (US 20200309555A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda teaches the vehicle display control device of claim 1 (see Yamaguchi [0052]-[0077] in general), wherein, for a lane change with the object of passing a vehicle in front, the processor displays the planned travel route (see Yamaguchi [0061] where CPU 202 controls the overall image data processing of the display apparatus 1, which also has the image control unit 250. Therefore, the information of the image control unit 250 and display apparatus 1 showing lane changes are varied by the CPU 202; see also Fig 18A-18C and [0146]-[0147] where display control unit 14 shows a travel path to change into another lane to overpass a vehicle. The Fig. 14-16 also shows configurations of hardware and functional configurations where there is a CPU that processes the information displayed just as mentioned above. This overall configuration shows that the CPU processes to display different information of either lane change due to overpassing a vehicle or of other reasons than passing, such as traveling a planned route)
While modified Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda teaches the processor displaying the planned travel route while changing a lane with the object of passing a vehicle in front, it does not explicitly teach a leading end of the displayed planned travel route thereof gradually becoming fainter.
Kumon teaches a leading end thereof gradually becoming fainter
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature as disclosed by Kumon into the invention of Yamaguchi et al. because Kumon teaches how intuitively the driver can view the display information with respect to the actual foreground through the use of markers in positions to indicate future positions of a vehicle (see Kumon [0006]-[0007]).
7. Claim 5 is rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda in further view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20220289228A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda teaches the vehicle display control device of claim 1 (see Yamaguchi [0052]-[0077] in general),
wherein, among lane changes with objects other than passing, the processor varies the information displayed in the display area (see Yamaguchi [0061] where CPU 202 controls the overall image data processing of the display apparatus 1, which also has the image control unit 250. Therefore, the information of the image control unit 250 and display apparatus 1 showing lane changes are varied by the CPU 202 as seen on Figs 7-10; see also Fig 18A-18C and [0146]-[0147] where display control unit 14 shows a travel path to change into another lane to overpass a vehicle. The Fig. 14-16 also shows configurations of hardware and functional configurations where there is a CPU that processes the information displayed just as mentioned above. This overall configuration shows that the CPU processes to display different information of either lane change due to overpassing a vehicle or of other reasons than passing, such as traveling a planned route as seen on Figs 7-10 as mentioned above)
While modified Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda teaches lane changes with objects other than passing, it does not explicitly teach varying the information displayed between a lane change for heading to a freeway exit and a lane change for approaching a branch road.
Yamamoto et al. teaches the processor varying the information displayed in the display area between a lane change for heading to a freeway exit and a lane change for approaching a branch road (see Yamamoto et al. Figs 4-5 versus Figs 11-12 where there is a distinction made between exit and branch marked in F2, i.e. a varying information through different wording displayed in the display area for freeway exit and branch road).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature as disclosed by Yamamoto et al. into the invention of Yamaguchi et al. because Yamamoto et al. teaches a human-machine interface capable of an autonomous steering control with lane information related to a possibility of a lane change of the vehicle executed by autonomous steering and entry into a congestion section where it is considered the recommended section to lane change into and help maneuver through the display information (see Yamamoto et al. [0004]).
8. Claim 6-7 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda and Yamamoto in further view of Yagyu et al. (US 20220107201A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda and Yamamoto teaches the vehicle display control device of claim 5 (see Yamaguchi [0052]-[0077] in general),
wherein, at a time of a lane change for heading to a freeway exit, the processor displays a see Yamamoto et al. Figs 4-5 shows a guidance of a planned route on the display to lead to a lane change to freeway exit).
While Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda and Yamamoto teaches the processor displaying a leading end of the planned travel route during lane change for heading to a freeway exit, it does not explicitly teach the leading end in a shape of an arrow.
Yagyu et al. teaches the displaying on a leading end of the planned travel route in a shape of an arrow (see Yagyu et al. Fig. 42 where there are series of arrows on the windshield display of the vehicle directing and leading a driver to change lane to head to a freeway exit.)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature as disclosed by Yagyu et al. into the invention of Yamaguchi et al. because Yagyu et al. teaches a lane change trajectory, based on a route information, superimposed on the road surface to display and correct vehicle deviated position, and to make it easier to recognize which direction to go (see Yagyu et al. [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda and Yamamoto teaches the vehicle display control device of claim 5 (see Yamaguchi [0052]-[0077] in general),
wherein, at a time of a lane change for approaching a branch road, the processor displays a leading end of the planned travel route discontinuously (see Yamamoto et al. Figs 11-12 shows a guidance of a planned route on the display to lead to a lane change to a branch road).
While Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda and Yamamoto teaches the processor displaying a leading end of the planned travel route during lane change for approaching a branch road, it does not explicitly teach displaying the leading end discontinuously.
Yagyu et al. teaches the displaying on a leading end of the planned travel route discontinuously (see Yagyu et al. Fig. 15 where there are series of discontinuous pointers on the windshield display of the vehicle directing and leading a driver to change lane on a planned route.)
Motivation above in the rejection of claim 6 applies here.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Tayama et al. (US 20180058879A1), teaches vehicle image display system that show travel course for lane change to an occupant. Shows attention calling marks and different patterns to show change of lanes for different situations.
b. Ishikawa (US 20130151145A1), shows route guidance of changing lane to pass a vehicle driving in front.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYANG AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4162. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/H.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661