DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are pending for examination in this Office action.
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 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 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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (Schmitz; US 2008/0258884) in view of Szczerba et al. (Szczerba; US 2010/0253598) and further in view of Sakaguchi et al. (Sakaguchi; JP 2022024562 with US application 18/007,519 and Publication US 2023/0211824 [all the citations are from the US Publication]).
As per claim 1, Schmitz teaches a vehicle display control device, comprising a processor configured to:
detect a lane marking in an object lane in which a vehicle is traveling (recognition of lane markings [in which the vehicle is travelling]; see e.g. para. [0012]);
acquire a speed of the vehicle (one or more sensors to measure the vehicle’s speed; see e.g. para. [0011]); and
when the vehicle is approaching the lane marking, display an image depending on whether a predetermined condition for calling attention is satisfied or not (outputting an image when a predetermined condition is satisfied [se e.g. para. [0011]], i.e. distance to lane markings see e.g. para. [0016]).
Schmitz does not teach displaying a lane marking image representing the lane marking in different display styles.
Szczerba, however, teaches displaying a lane marking image representing the lane marking in different display styles based on a predetermined condition (see e.g. claim 2 and claims 5-7).
Schmitz and Szczerba are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved safety.
Schmitz and Szczerba do not explicitly teach that the different display styles is depending on whether the speed of the vehicle is lower than a predetermined speed or not.
Sakaguchi, however, teaches to change display style depending on an approach of a vehicle towards a boundary edge (see e.g. para. [0081-82]), wherein the vehicle route or approach is determined based on the vehicle speed, yaw rate, steering angle and so forth (see e.g. para. [0166]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to display the unsafety indication 430 (FIG. 4B) with a first indication when a speed of approach is less than a threshold speed and display the unsafety indication 430 with a different style when the approach speed is more than a threshold speed because generating alarm or alert based on a predetermined distance from road edge which depends on speed is already taught by Sakaguchi ([0166-168]).
Schmitz, Szczerba and Sakaguchi are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine their teachings for the purpose of reducing road accidents or collisions with road boundaries, for example, which is turn may safe valuable lives and/or property.
As per claim 2, the vehicle display control device according to claim 1 Schmitz, Szczerba and Sakaguchi, wherein the processor is configured to display the lane marking image in a more enhanced manner when the speed of the vehicle is not lower than the predetermined speed as compared to when the speed of the vehicle is lower than the predetermined speed (as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to display the unsafety indication 430 (FIG. 4B) with a first indication when a speed of approach is less than a threshold speed and display the unsafety indication 430 with a different or enhanced style [see e.g. FIGS. 4B and 5] when the approach speed is more than a threshold speed because generating alarm or alert based on a predetermined distance which depends on speed is already taught by Sakaguchi; see e.g. [0166-168]).
As per claim 4, the vehicle display control device according to claim 1 Schmitz, Szczerba and Sakaguchi, wherein the processor is configured to display a warning image for calling of the attention when the speed of the vehicle is not lower than the predetermined speed and the vehicle approaching the lane marking (as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to display the unsafety indication 430 (FIG. 4B) with a first indication when a speed of approach is less than a threshold speed and display the unsafety indication 430 with a different or enhanced style [see e.g. FIGS. 4B and 5] when the approach speed is more than a threshold speed because generating alarm or alert based on a predetermined distance from a road edge which depends on speed is already taught by Sakaguchi; see e.g. [0166-168]).
As per claim 5, the vehicle display control device according to claim 4 as taught by Schmitz, Szczerba and Sakaguchi, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a distance between the vehicle and the lane marking; and display the warning image in different display styles in accordance with the distance between the vehicle and the lane marking (as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1, acquiring a distance from lane marking to generate a warning, as taught by Schmitz [see e.g. para. [0012] and [0016], wherein lane markings color can be changed to a different color based on current position of the vehicle with respect to the lane markings; see e.g. claims 5-7).
As per claims 6 and 7, they are interpreted and rejected as claim 1.
As per claim 8, the vehicle display control device according to claim 1 as taught by Schmitz, Szczerba and Sakaguchi, wherein the processor is configured to display a warning image together with the lane marking image when the speed of the vehicle is not lower than the predetermined speed and the vehicle is approaching the lane marking, the warning image being displayed in a more enhanced manner as a distance between the vehicle and the lane marking that the vehicle is approaching decreases (Sakaguchi teaches generating a warning image together with lane marking image, see e.g. FIGS. 4B and 5, and teaches generating an alert when a vehicle approaches a lane boundary and distance is less than a threshold, see e.g. para. [0054] and [0168], wherein it would have been obvious that speed and distance can be inferred from each other, i.e. a predetermined distance can be made smaller when speed is increased and vice versa. Furthermore, Sakaguchi teaches that road edge prevention alarm unit can change size of vehicle image when speed increased, see e.g. para. [0178], which means the distance threshold is smaller. In addition, alarm level is increased in relation to road edge, see e.g. para. [0137], wherein it would have been obvious to the warning image is displayed with enhanced or increased level when distance from road edge decreased or approach speed to the road edge increased). Therefore, the disclosed system of Sakaguchi makes obvious a display a warning image together with the lane marking image when the speed of the vehicle is not lower than the predetermined speed and the vehicle is approaching the lane marking, the warning image being displayed in a more enhanced manner as a distance between the vehicle and the lane marking that the vehicle is approaching decreases.
As per claims 9 and 10, they are interpreted and rejected as claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 04/03/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights