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.
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.
Claim 6 has been amended.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are independent.
This FINAL rejection is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 6/9/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 6/9/2026; 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 claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections of Claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
With respect to Claims 1-5, which were not amended. Applicant remarks “Kakimaru and Hubbell, either individually or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest at least the aforementioned features recited in independent claims 1 and 4-6” which are “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” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, the Office stated in the previous Office action and again below, that it is the combination of the cited prior art that renders the claimed subject matter obvious. The Office agreed that Kakimuru does not specifically state that that image is an image as viewed from the opposite side of the vehicle, rather changes the virtual view point image from either right to left, depending on which way the vehicle was changing lanes, as the claimed subject matter requires. The Office further introduced Hubbell, which is also a vehicle display system that displays an array of different displays around the vehicle, based on speed, lane changes, possible situation. Hubbell clearly demonstrates this changing display of data, based on images, as the claims required. Finally, as cited previously and again below, Hubbell teaches cameras on the left and right mirror, that are displayed inside 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]. Further, when the looking at Figure 42 and it cited paragraphs, one can see that the display shows both the left mirror and right mirror. Further, when changing lanes to the right, the V4 image as well as the V2 image are displayed. This clearly shows an images, based on camera values, with a view point, on the opposite side of the vehicle. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant further remarks, in response to Hubbell “the "virtual viewpoint images" identified by the Office Action in Hubbell are merely images obtained from multiple cameras mounted on the vehicle, which are displayed as-is, or displayed side-by-side or stitched together as needed. In fact, Hubbell's technology involves placing real cameras (e.g., video cameras, CCTV cameras, and IP-based digital still cameras) at various locations on the vehicle and displaying real-time information obtained from these cameras. For example, in Fig. 14 of Hubbell, the image from camera A or camera B is displayed on video display 81. In Fig. 15, the images from camera A and camera B are displayed side-by-side on video display 81. Regarding Fig. 46 of Hubbell, the following description is provided in Hubbell: "The cameras are collectively and individually viewable on a cab-integrated screen (or driver tablet). In one example, the monitor may display a plan (or bird's eye) view of the entire combination vehicle with the various fields-of-view 'stitched together', and automatically adjusting to show the articulation angle between the tractor and trailer when turning." See Hubbell, col. 24, lines 48-54. However, this portion does not disclose any virtual viewpoint” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, the Office stated in the previous Office action and again below, that it is the combination of the cited prior art that renders the claimed subject matter obvious. It remains the Office’s stance the Hubbell clearly discloses “virtual viewpoints” as the images from the cameras are viewpoints the user does not have, but would have, if the user was at the location of the camera. Further, what are the metes and bounds of applicants “virtual viewpoint”? What would be this and what would not? The Office interpreted this term as broad, rather than indefinite, but if applicant has more precise metes and bounds, supported by the specification, the Office suggests amending the claims to capture said metes and bounds, since as currently presented, the cited prior art still renders the claimed subject matter obvious. Therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Applicant further remarks that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
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 § 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 1-6 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.
With respect to Claim 6: While Kakimaru discloses “A vehicle control device comprising a processor” [Kakimaru, ¶ 0092, 0120-0128, 0145-152 with Figures 6 and 10a-10e];
“wherein: when a vehicle is executing driving assistance control to change lanes toward one side of either the left or the right” [Kakimaru, ¶ 0092, 0120-0128, 0145-152 with Figures 6 and 10a-10e];
“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” [Kakimaru, ¶ 0092, 0120-0128, 0145-152 with Figures 6 and 10a-10e];
“and based on a virtual viewpoint positioned a vehicle width direction center of the vehicle” [Kakimaru, ¶ 0092, 0120-0128, 0145-152 with Figures 6 and 10a-10e];
“and causes display of the virtual viewpoint image on a display device provided at the vehicle” [Kakimaru, ¶ 0092, 0120-0128, 0145-152 with Figures 6 and 10a-10e];
“control a movement of the vehicle based on the driving assistance control” [Kakimaru, ¶ 0020, 0023, and 0041];
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 “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 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];
“based on image data acquired by cameras mounted to the vehicle and based on a virtual viewpoint positioned on a side of a vehicle width direction center line that is opposite to 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 vehicle width direction center line extending in a front-rear direction through a center of a body 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];
“control a movement of the vehicle based on the driving assistance control” [Hubbell, Col 14 lines 25-46, Col 23 lines 8-66 and Col 24 lines 33-55 with Figures 42 and 46];
“wherein, in a top plan view of the vehicle, the virtual viewpoint is positioned longitudinal aligned with a front seat of the vehicle or positioned forward of the front seat in a front-rear direction of the vehicle” [Hubbell, Col 14 lines 25-46, Col 23 lines 8-66 and Col 24 lines 33-55 with Figures 42 and 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.
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
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
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
Prosecution Insights