DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/18/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 11/2/2023 and 6/24/2025 have been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 12/5/22.
Status of Application
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Claims 1 and 4-5 have been amended.
Claim 6 has been added.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are independent.
This Non-FINAL rejection is in response to the “Request for continued Examination wit Amendments and Remarks” received on 2/18/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 2/18/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the Non-FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that none of the claims contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 states “and based on a virtual viewpoint positioned further to another side of either the left or the right than a vehicle width direction center of the vehicle” and the metes and bounds of this claim unclear, thus indefinite. First. It appears that the virtual viewpoint needs to be off-center from the main vehicle, but what distance is being used here? Is this the vehicle that is being used? Further, what is this width? Is this a set distance? When the Office looks into the specification, it appears that EP1 and EP2 are the new viewpoints, yet these are not 1 full vehicle width apart? Thus what is actually being claimed? As currently presented, Claim 6 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus it is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret any new view that shows more detail on a left or right side as reading on this. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 6 states “wherein, in a plan view, the virtual viewpoint is positioned at a same vehicle longitudinal position as a front seat of the vehicle or at a position forward of the front seat in a vehicle longitudinal direction” and the metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear. First, what is a “plan view”? When the Office looks into the specification, it states Figures 2 and 6 are “plan view” yet these do not follow the limitations as “from a front seat”, thus what is required is unclear thus indefinite. Further, what is the longitude and latitude for the “longitude” to be the same? Finally, would any image that appears to be from the front seat read on this? As currently presented, Claim 6 fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus it is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret any image that is displayed as from the front seat as reading on this. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 6 is directed to an apparatus Therefore, Claim 6 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.
Claim 6 recites: A vehicle control device comprising a processor, wherein: when a vehicle is executing driving assistance control to change lanes toward one side of either the left or the right, the processor is configured to:
generates a virtual viewpoint image representing an area positioned further in front of and further toward the one side than an occupant of the vehicle based on image data acquired by cameras mounted to the vehicle
and based on a virtual viewpoint positioned further to another side of either the left or the right than a vehicle width direction center of the vehicle and
causes display of the virtual viewpoint image on a display device provided at the vehicle
wherein, in a plan view, the virtual viewpoint is positioned at a same vehicle longitudinal position as a front seat of the vehicle or at a position forward of the front seat in a vehicle longitudinal direction.
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. Specifically, the “generates and displays” steps encompass a user to make gather information between two sources, divide it into sections, and determine errors of the data. 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”):
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 and display”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “processor and display” are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the generating steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the display is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do 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 limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a processor and display. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of image data is a mere definition of data sets that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only gathers data where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that generating and displaying, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a controller to perform the process. In particular, the gathering and displaying steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of generating data for use in the displaying step), and amounts to mere displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 controller 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 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 6 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 the processor and display amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of receiving data and dividing data, and determinizing errors, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of generating a display are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors from which the image data is acquired/received are all conventional sensors. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, Claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle with the display. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kakimaru (United States Patent Publication 2022/0116574) in view of Hubbell et al. (United States Patent 9,227,568)
With respect to Claim 1: While Kakimaru discloses “A vehicle control device comprising a processor configured to: when a vehicle is executing driving assistance control to change lanes toward either a left side or a right side” [Kakimaru, ¶ 0092, 0120-0128, 0145-152 with Figures 6 and 10a-10e];
“generate, based on image data acquired by cameras mounted on the vehicle” [Kakimaru, ¶ 0034-0035];
“a virtual viewpoint image that depicts an area located ahead of the vehicle and on a side toward which the vehicle is changing lanes” [Kakimaru, ¶ 0092, 0120-0128, 0145-152 with Figures 6 and 10a-10e];
“the virtual viewpoint image being an image as viewed generated from a virtual viewpoint” [Kakimaru, ¶ 0092, 0120-0128, 0145-152 with Figures 6 and 10a-10e];
“the vehicle width direction center line extending in a front-rear direction through a center of a body of the vehicle” [Kakimaru, ¶ 0092, 0120-0128, 0145-152 with Figures 6 and 10a-10e];
“display the virtual viewpoint image on a display device provided in the vehicle” [Kakimaru, ¶ 0092, 0120-0128, 0145-152 with Figures 6 and 10a-10e];
“and control a movement of the vehicle based on the driving assistance control” [Kakimaru, ¶ 0092, 0120-0128, 0145-152 with Figures 6 and 10a-10e];
Kakimuru does not specifically state that that image is an image as viewed from the opposite side.
Hubbell, which is also a vehicle control display system that displays viewpoint images based on lane changes teaches “generate, based on image data acquired by cameras mounted on the vehicle” [Hubbell, Col 14 lines 25-46, Col 23 lines 8-66, and Col 24 lines 33-55 with Figures 8, 14-15, 25, 42 and 46];
“a virtual viewpoint image that depicts an area located ahead of the vehicle and on a side toward which the vehicle is changing lanes” [Hubbell, Col 14 lines 25-46, Col 23 lines 8-66, and Col 24 lines 33-55 with Figures 8, 14-15, 25, 42 and 46];
“the virtual viewpoint image being an image as viewed from a virtual viewpoint positioned on a side of a vehicle width direction center line that is opposite to the side toward which the vehicle is changing lanes” [Hubbell, Col 14 lines 25-46, Col 23 lines 8-66, and Col 24 lines 33-55 with Figures 8, 14-15, 25, 42 and 46];
“the vehicle width direction center line extending in a front-rear direction through a center of a body of the vehicle” [Hubbell, Col 24 lines 33-55 with Figure 46];
“display the virtual viewpoint image on a display device provided in the vehicle” [Hubbell, Col 24 lines 33-55 with Figure 46].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hubbell into the invention of Kakimaru to not only include data in the display in response to a lane changing event with a distinct view point as Kakimaru discloses but to also display on the side of the display in which the vehicle is changing lanes as taught by Hubbell with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Hubbell into Kakimaru to create a more robust system increases safety by adding more information to data being displayed thus “to avoid any unsafe lane-changing or other maneuvering” [Hubbell, Col 17 lines 32-45]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as displaying images inside a vehicle and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 2: While Kakimaru discloses “The vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein: the display device is positioned further in front than a seat of the vehicle” [Kakimaru, ¶ 0044 with Figure 3];
“the display device includes a display area capable of displaying the virtual viewpoint image” [Kakimaru, ¶ 0044 with Figure 3];
“and the processor is further configured to display the virtual viewpoint image in a display area that corresponds to the side toward which the vehicle is changing lanes” [Kakimaru, ¶ 0092, 0120-0128, 0145-152 with Figures 6 and 10a-10e];
However Kakimaru does not specifically state regions of the display.
Hubbell, which is also a vehicle control display system that displays viewpoint images based on lane changes teaches “and the processor is further configured to display the virtual viewpoint image in a region of the display area that corresponds to the side toward which the vehicle is changing lanes” [Hubbell, Col 14 lines 25-46, Col 23 lines 8-66 with Figures 8, 14-15, 25 and 42].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hubbell into the invention of Kakimaru to not only include data in the display in response to a lane changing event with a distinct view point as Kakimaru discloses but to also display on the side of the display in which the vehicle is changing lanes as taught by Hubbell with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Hubbell into Kakimaru to create a more robust system increases safety by adding more information to data being displayed thus “to avoid any unsafe lane-changing or other maneuvering” [Hubbell, Col 17 lines 32-45]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as displaying images inside a vehicle and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Design Choice: It is the Office's stance that the specification of the image being on the left or right of the display, without any explanation of any well-known benefit of a either the left or the right side is a mere design choice. By choosing a location for the display on a display, without the recitation of a known and understood benefit of selecting one side over another, does not distinct the invention over the prior art, rather demonstrates design variations. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of choosing left right, or even up and down and it would have been obvious and the design choice would have produced predictable results.
With respect to Claim 3: Kakimaru discloses “The vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to cause causes display of an image representing the vehicle on the display device” [Kakimaru, ¶ 0092, 0120-0128, 0145-152 with Figures 6 and 10a-10e].
With respect to Claim 4: all limitations have been examined with respect to the device in Claim 1. The method taught/disclosed in Claim 4 can clearly perform the device of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 4 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 5: all limitations have been examined with respect to the device in Claim 1. The medium taught/disclosed in Claim 5 can clearly perform the device of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 5 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Hubbell et al. (United States Patent 9,227,568).
With respect to Claim 6: Hubbell discloses “A vehicle control device comprising a processor” [Hubbell, Col 11 lines 36-59];
“wherein: when a vehicle is executing driving assistance control to change lanes toward one side of either the left or the right” [Hubbell, Col 14 lines 25-46, Col 23 lines 8-66 with Figures 8, 14-15, 25 and 42];
“the processor: generates a virtual viewpoint image representing an area positioned further in front of and further toward the one side than an occupant of the vehicle based on image data acquired by cameras mounted to the vehicle” [Hubbell, Col 14 lines 25-46, Col 23 lines 8-66 with Figures 8, 14-15, 25 and 42];
“and based on a virtual viewpoint positioned further to another side of either the left or the right than a vehicle width direction center of the vehicle” [Hubbell, Col 14 lines 25-46, Col 23 lines 8-66 with Figures 8, 14-15, 25 and 42];
“and causes display of the virtual viewpoint image on a display device provided at the vehicle” [Hubbell, Col 14 lines 25-46, Col 23 lines 8-66 with Figures 8, 14-15, 25 and 42];
“wherein, in a plan view, the virtual viewpoint is positioned at a same vehicle longitudinal position as a front seat of the vehicle or at a position forward of the front seat in a vehicle longitudinal direction” [Hubbell, Col 14 lines 25-46, Col 23 lines 8-66 and Col 24 lines 33-55 with Figures 42 and 46].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c