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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6-7, and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitayama (DE 102020135098) in view of Hayashida (US 20200164800) and further in view of Katoh (US 20110128136).
Regarding claim 1, Kitayama teaches a display control apparatus configured to control a display unit configured to display information about a surrounding area of a user’s vehicle, the display control apparatus comprising:
A memory storing instructions (Page 24, Paragraph 2, The computer programs can be stored on a tangible, non-volatile, computer-readable storage medium as instructions); and
A processor configured to execute the instructions (Page 24, Paragraph 2, processor executing a computer program) to:
(1) Select a partial area from an imaging area (Page 2, Paragraph 2, partial image from the image captured by the camera) of an imaging unit configured to image the surrounding area (Page 6, Paragraph 4, monitoring the surroundings of the subject vehicle),
(2) Cut a cutout image corresponding to the partial area from an image captured by the imaging unit (Page 2, Paragraph 2, cutting out a partial image from the image captured by the camera).
While Kitayama fails to disclose the following, Hayashida teaches:
(3) Cause the display unit to display (a) the cutout image and (b) a position image indicating a first range corresponding to a position of the partial area relative to the user’s vehicle (Paragraph 9, generating an indicator for indicating a distance from the self-vehicle to the rear; and superimposing the indicator onto an image to be displayed on the display unit).
Hayashida and Kitayama are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging while operating a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitayama by using Hayashida and displaying the cutout image and a range to a position of a partial area relative to the user’s vehicle. Doing so would allow the user to easily determine the distance an object in an image is away from their vehicle to make better driving decisions.
While the combination of Hayashida and Kitayama fails to disclose the following, Katoh teaches:
Based on a detection result of a detector configured to detect a moving object, the moving object being present in the partial area (Paragraph 13, a moving-object detector that detects whether there is a moving object approaching the vehicle),
Wherein in a case where another moving object is detected outside the partial area, the position image is changed by changing a display of a portion of the first range on a side corresponding to a direction relative to the user’s vehicle in which the another moving object exists (Paragraph 13, a moving-object detector that detects whether there is a moving object approaching the vehicle as an own vehicle from the peripheral image based on own-vehicle information indicating running conditions of the own vehicle, a switching unit that switches between images in a plurality of systems input to a display unit, and a switching instruction unit that instructs the switching unit to switch to the peripheral image when the moving object is detected by the moving-object detector; Also see Figure 6).
Additionally, Katoh teaches: (3) Cause the display unit to display (a) the cutout image and (b) a position image indicating a first range corresponding to a position of the partial area relative to the user’s vehicle (Paragraph 76, the switching display unit 15d may superimpose the moving object on the camera image and display the speed of the moving object and the distance between the moving object and the own vehicle).
Katoh and the combination of Kitayama and Hayashida are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging while operating a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kitayama and Hayashida by using Katoh and detecting a moving object and changing the camera image to the direction of the moving object. Doing so would allow the user of a potential collision and allow them to avoid by informing them of the moving object.
Method claim 14 and CRM claim 15 correspond to apparatus claim 1. Therefore, claims 14 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh teaches the display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where a detector configured to detect a moving object detects a first moving object approaching the user's vehicle in an area outside the partial area, the processor is configured to cause the display unit to display information indicating approach of the first moving object (Kitayama, Page 3, Paragraph 3, the moving target not included in the display image created based on the image picked up by the first image pickup device can be included in the display image created based on the image picked up by the second image pickup device).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh teaches the display control apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to change display on a side of a direction in which the first moving object approaches the user’s vehicle in the first range (Kitayama, Page 2, Paragraph 4, a trailing vehicle of the subject vehicle approaches the subject vehicle, a proportion of the trailing vehicle in the image captured by the rear camera increases, and accordingly a blind spot area that is a rear area of the trailing vehicle increases; Page 16, Paragraph 6, the display control unit may 25th activate the warning indicator to inform of the presence of the moving target. In this case, in the display image that the rear view camera 511 corresponds to a frame or the like surrounding the estimated position of the moving target object on the display screen of the display device 4th are displayed).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh teaches an image pickup apparatus comprising:
The display control apparatus according to claim 1; and
An image sensor (Kitayama, Page 5, Paragraph 3, The peripheral monitoring sensor 5 is configured to monitor an environment of the subject vehicle. The peripheral monitoring sensor 5 contains the peripheral surveillance camera unit).
Regarding claim 11, Kitayama teaches an image pickup apparatus comprising:
The detector configured to detect the moving object (Page 12, Paragraph 4, captured image is cut out to enlarge toward the vehicle body of the subject vehicle. With this configuration, the moving target object can be displayed in any area of the display image);
An imaging unit configured to image a surrounding area of a user’s vehicle (Page 5, Paragraph 3, The peripheral monitoring sensor 5 is configured to monitor an environment of the subject vehicle. The peripheral monitoring sensor 5 contains the peripheral surveillance camera unit);
While Kitayama fails to disclose the following, Hayashida teaches:
A display unit configured to display information about the surrounding area (Paragraph 9, generating an indicator for indicating a distance from the self-vehicle to the rear; and superimposing the indicator onto an image to be displayed on the display unit).
Hayashida and Kitayama are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging while operating a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitayama by using Hayashida and displaying information surrounding a user’s vehicle. Doing so would allow the user to make more informed driving decisions.
Additionally, the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh teaches the display control apparatus according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh teaches the movable apparatus according to claim 11. While the combination as previously presented fails to disclose the following, Hayashida further teaches:
A first imaging unit configured to image a first surrounding area (Paragraph 26, The CMS camera 11L on the left side captures images of what is to the left and to the rear of the self-vehicle V); and
A second imaging unit configured to image a second surrounding area different from the first surrounding area (Paragraph 26, MS cameras can capture what is to the side rear of the self-vehicle V. The CMS camera 11L on the left side captures images of what is to the left and to the rear of the self-vehicle V. The CMS camera 11R on the right side captures images of what is to the right and to the rear of the self-vehicle V. FIG. 4 illustrates ranges (view ranges) that can be captured by the CMS cameras).
Hayashida and the combination of Kitayama and Katoh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging while operating a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kitayama and Katoh by using Hayashida and image a second surrounding area different than the first surrounding area. Doing so would allow for sensing other areas around the vehicle that may be obstructed by only one imaging unit.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh teaches the movable apparatus according to claim 11. While the combination as previously presented fails to disclose the following, Hayashida further teaches:
A first display unit configured to display information about a first surrounding area (Paragraph 9, display unit comprising a first display unit that displays an image of what is to the left side rear of the self-vehicle); and
A second display unit configured to display information about a second surrounding area different from the first surrounding area (Paragraph 9, display unit comprising a first display unit that displays an image of what is to the left side rear of the self-vehicle and a second display unit that displays an image of what is to the right side rear of the self-vehicle).
Hayashida and the combination of Kitayama and Katoh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging while operating a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kitayama and Katoh by using Hayashida and display a second surrounding area different than the first surrounding area. Doing so would allow for the user to easily understand the surroundings of different areas of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh teaches the display control apparatus according to claim 1. While the combination as presented previously fails to disclose the following, Hayashida further teaches:
Wherein the position image includes (i) a vehicle icon indicating the user’s vehicle and (ii) a cutout range that indicates the first range (Figure 5B shows an indication of the user’s vehicle along with markers indicating preset distances away from the user’s vehicle (37)).
Hayashida and the combination of Kitayama and Katoh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging while operating a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kitayama and Katoh by using Hayashida and use a position image including the user’s vehicle and a cutout range that indicates the first range. Doing so would allow for the user to easily understand the surroundings of different areas of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh teaches the display control apparatus according to claim 1. While the combination as presented previously fails to disclose the following, Katoh further teaches:
Wherein in a case where the another moving object is detected outside the partial area, the display of the portion of the first range on the side corresponding to the direction is changed by changing at least one of a color, a thickness, or blinking (Paragraph 38, the on-vehicle device according to the present invention highlights the moving object having the high risk of collision in such a manner that a frame is caused to blink or a color of the moving object is changed).
Katoh and the combination of Kitayama and Hayashida are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging while operating a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kitayama and Hayashida by using Katoh and changing color or blinking to indicate the moving object. Doing so would allow indicating a moving object with a high risk of collision (Katoh, paragraph 38).
Claims 3-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitayama in view of Hayashida and further in view of Katoh as applied to claims 1, 6-7, and 10-17 above and further in view of Bond (US 20240042954).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh teaches the display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to select the partial area so that the cutout image includes one of moving objects that approach the user’s vehicle (Kitayama, Page 14, Paragraphs 1-2, When the immediately following moving object approaches the subject vehicle, as in FIG 10 shown most of the rear view camera 511 corresponding display image can be taken by the immediately following moving object; the immediately following moving object is recorded, it should be assumed that the cutout area of the display image from that of the rear view camera).
While the combination fails to disclose the following, Bond teaches:
Which is closest to the user’s vehicle (Paragraph 9, the controller is further programmed to identify the relevant object as the closest of the plurality of matching objects to the vehicle).
Bond and the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging while operating a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh by using Bond and displaying the closest object moving towards the user’s vehicle. Doing so would allow the user of a potential collision and allow them to avoid by informing them of the closest object moving towards them.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh teaches the display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to select the partial area so that the cutout image includes one of moving objects that approach the user’s vehicle (Kitayama, Page 14, Paragraphs 1-2, When the immediately following moving object approaches the subject vehicle, as in FIG 10 shown most of the rear view camera 511 corresponding display image can be taken by the immediately following moving object; the immediately following moving object is recorded, it should be assumed that the cutout area of the display image from that of the rear view camera).
While the combination fails to disclose the following, Bond teaches:
Located within a predetermined distance from the user’s vehicle (Paragraph 47, As a non-limiting example, in the central lane 64, the second image plane 60 starts at a first predetermined distance D1 (e.g., twenty-five meters) from the vehicle 12 and ends at a second predetermined distance D2 (e.g., ninety meters) from the vehicle), which is closest to the user’s vehicle (Paragraph 9, the controller is further programmed to identify the relevant object as the closest of the plurality of matching objects to the vehicle).
Bond and the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging while operating a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh by using Bond and displaying the closest object moving towards the user’s vehicle that is within a predetermined distance from the user’s vehicle. Doing so would allow the user of a potential collision and allow them to avoid by informing them of the closest object moving towards them that is close enough to cause potential harm.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh teaches the display control apparatus according to claim 6, the processor is configured to change display on a side of a direction in which the first moving object approaches the user's vehicle (Kitayama, Page 2, Paragraph 4, a trailing vehicle of the subject vehicle approaches the subject vehicle, a proportion of the trailing vehicle in the image captured by the rear camera increases, and accordingly a blind spot area that is a rear area of the trailing vehicle increases; Page 16, Paragraph 6, the display control unit may 25th activate the warning indicator to inform of the presence of the moving target. In this case, in the display image that the rear view camera 511 corresponds to a frame or the like surrounding the estimated position of the moving target object on the display screen of the display device 4th are displayed).
While the combination fails to disclose the following, Bond teaches:
In a second range indicating a position of the imaging area relative to the user's vehicle (Paragraph 47, the second image plane 60 is delimited by a sloped boundary that starts at the first predetermined distance D1 from the vehicle 12 and ends at a third predetermined distance D3 (e.g., fifty meters) from the vehicle 12. The third predetermined distance D3 is greater than the first predetermined distance D1 and less than the second predetermined distance).
Bond and the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging while operating a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh by using Bond and utilizing a second range imaging area. Doing so would allow the user of the vehicle to easily understand a difference in severity depending on if the moving object exists in the first or second range.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitayama in view of Hayashida and further in view of Katoh as applied to claims 1, 6-7, and 10-17 above and further in view of Chang (US 20200215991).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh teaches the display control apparatus according to claim 7. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Chang teaches:
Wherein the processor is configured to change display according to a distance between the user's vehicle and the first moving object (Paragraph 93, The auxiliary system 0001 further includes a warning module 0016 and at least one warning member 0018, wherein the warning module 0016 is electrically connected to the operation module 0014, thereby to obtain a vehicle condition and a distance between the moving object 0002 and the movable carrier 0000 according to an algorithm).
Chang and the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imaging while operating a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kitayama, Hayashida, and Katoh by using Chang changing the display based on the distance between the user’s vehicle and the first movable object. Doing so would allow the user easily interpret how close the nearest movable object is and avoid a potential collision.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, applicant claims that Kitayama teaches determines whether a following vehicle or other moving object that may cause a blind spot is present, and when a moving object is present within both the blind spot and the overlapping region, the image from the camera that provides a more suitable view within the overlapping region is preferentially displayed. However, Katoh is used to address the moving object detected outside of the partial area. Katoh also teaches changing the direction of the camera when the moving object is detected outside of the currently displayed area.
Additionally, applicant argues that Katoh switching to a peripheral image when the moving object is detected, which switching is unrelated to the changing required by the claims. Based on broadest reasonable interpretation, “the position image is changed by changing a display of a portion of the first range on a side corresponding to a direction relative to the user’s vehicle in which the another moving object exists” is taught by Katoh as cited previously. Switching the camera to the moving object is changing the position image to display the moving object.
Applicant argues that superimposing the moving object on the camera image and displaying speed and distance is unrelated to the changing required by the claims. However, the claims require a position image indicating a first range corresponding to a position of the partial area relative to the user’s vehicle. Katoh teaches indicating the distance to the area in the image. Therefore, Katoh teaches the above limitations of claims 1 and 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SNIGDHA SINHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6618. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 12pm-8pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at 571-272-3022. 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.
/SNIGDHA SINHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2619
/JASON CHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights