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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim(s) 1 has been amended. Claim(s) 1-4 are pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-4 is improper. Applicant asserts that the newly amended limitations in claim 1 reciting “using coordinates of two points on a plane in which existence of an object is detected,” and “a detection straight line passing through the two points is on a vehicle side with respect to a reference point defined by the guide line” are not taught in the cited prior art. Therefore independent claim 1 is allowable and claims 2-4 are further allowable due to their dependence on allowable subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) claims 1-4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner finds it moot. Applicant’s arguments are based on the new limitations not being taught by the prior art. After further search and consideration the examiner would rely on newly cited art to teach this. The examiner would now reject claim 1 as obvious in view of Shimazu with Ikeda and Wang (US Pat 12,637,097). Broadly speaking Wang teaches “an assistance system and a method for assisting a user of such an assistance system including a display displaying representations of one or more objects in the environment of the display. In a first step, information on an environment of the display, is determined and presence of objects in the environment is determined. Then, a representation of the environment including representations of the objects determined in the environment is generated.” (Abstract). Looking further Figs. 3 and 4; Col 6, lines 46-67; and Col 7, lines 1-42; teach a system that can broadcast a plane S.sub.o, from an origin point in the ego vehicle. This plane intersects the end point coordinates, 11 and 12, of the detected vehicle. This intersection of coordinate points is then used to determine that an obstacle exists at a given point in space. The system then adjusts the display screen of the vehicle. While the adjustment of the screen is not the same as claimed, the fact that the display is altered based on the detection of the vehicle shows that Wang would be similar to other cited art. As Wang teaches in Col. 2, lines 25-39; “The general idea of the present invention is that a user of an assistance system will easily recognize information on the environment, which is displayed of the display, when the user can easily identify objects in the environment of the display with respective icons (images) as representations of the objects on the display. Consequently, the time needed by the user to align the information perceived directly from observing the environment and information given by the display is reduced. This results in a user's improved understanding of the overall situation and, in the end, reduces errors that are made by the user. In case that such an assistance system is dedicated to assist a person participating in traffic, for example, when operating a vehicle in which such an assistance system is mounted, this will lead to increased safety.” The incorporation of Wang with Shimazu and Ikeda creates a safer driving environment. Thus, the present invention would be seen as obvious. Claims 1-4 would remain rejected under 35 SUC 103, see the section below titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103” below for more detailed explanation and mapping.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The newly added limitation of “a detection straight line passing through the two points is on a vehicle side with respect to a reference point defined by the guide line” appears to be clunky and can lead to confusion in reading. The applicant should try to rewrite this to more clearly convey what they are claiming.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazu (US PG Pub 2020/0302657) in view of Ikeda (US PG Pub 2010/0289634) and Wang (US Pat 12,637,097).
Regarding claim 1, Shimazu teaches a surrounding display device comprising:
a processor and memory storing instructions configured to implement: ([0060] teaches the use of a processor to control the system, [0062] and [0068] teach a memory storing instructions to be implemented by the processor)
a display processor that causes a display device to display a display image in which a guide line is superimposed on a surrounding image indicating a situation in surroundings of a mobile body; ([0080]-[0081] teaches a display device capable of displaying video images generated by cameras surrounding a vehicle. [0087], [0117], and [0121]-[0136] and Figs. 5, 18, 21-24; teach the display device can superimpose guidelines onto the display device that can be used to indicate the situation around the vehicle)
a detector that detects existence of an obstacle in a region specified by the guide line ([0063] teaches the system can detect and object as a vehicle travels. [0072] teaches that a controller can determine that the object detected is in a detection region of a video image. [0136] teaches that the system can determine that the guide lines overlap with the detected object)
a display changer a display mode of the guide line such that a salience of the guide line decreases when the detector detects the existence of the obstacle in the region ([0136] teaches the controller can alter the guide lines such that the salience of the guide lines decreases, either by removing them or altering the transmittance)
Shimazu does not teach using coordinates of two points on a plane in which existence of an object is detected; a detection straight line passing through the two points is on a vehicle side with respect to a reference point defined by the guide line; wherein the guide line is a fixed guide line that is fixed in location with respect to a current position of the mobile body.
However, Ikeda teaches “wherein the guide line is a fixed guide line that is fixed in location with respect to a current position of the mobile body.” ([0061] teaches “the vehicle-backward line 75 is displayed on the peripheral image. The vehicle-backward line 75 is an index line indicating a predetermined position of the rear of the vehicle regardless of the steering angle of the vehicle. Thus, the vehicle-backward line 75 is superimposed and displayed on a predetermined position fixed in the peripheral image according to the optical relationship with the camera 21 provided in the vehicle.” The examiner would find this line 75 to teach fixed guidelines in relation to the vehicle.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Shimazu with Ikeda; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to vehicle display apparatuses. These apparatuses can be used to impose vehicle guide lines into the image of the vehicle camera. These guidelines are used by a driver to drive their vehicle with some form of assistance. As taught in [0051] of Ikeda the “an index for assisting a driver who drives the vehicle. According to the present embodiment, the index for assisting the driver is displayed in order to prevent the vehicle from making contact with a peripheral obstacle when the vehicle is reversed.” These fixed index lines add guidance for the user and would help to ensure that the vehicle and the driver do not collide with other objects.
The combination of Shimazu and Ikeda does not teach using coordinates of two points on a plane in which existence of an object is detected, and a detection straight line passing through the two points is on a vehicle side with respect to a reference point defined by the guide line.
However, Wang teaches “using coordinates of two points on a plane in which existence of an object is detected,” (Col. 7, lines 29-43; teach the system detecting two points, 11 and 12, as coordinates of the obstacle detected by the ego vehicle as it travels) and “a detection straight line passing through the two points is on a vehicle side with respect to a reference point defined by the guide line.” (Figs. 3 and 4; Col 6, lines 46-67; and Col 7, lines 1-42; teach a system that can broadcast a plane S.sub.o, from an origin point in the ego vehicle. This plane intersects the end point coordinates, 11 and 12, of the detected vehicle.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Shimazu and Ikeda with Wang; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to vehicle display apparatuses. As Wang teaches in Col. 2, lines 25-39; “The general idea of the present invention is that a user of an assistance system will easily recognize information on the environment, which is displayed of the display, when the user can easily identify objects in the environment of the display with respective icons (images) as representations of the objects on the display. Consequently, the time needed by the user to align the information perceived directly from observing the environment and information given by the display is reduced. This results in a user's improved understanding of the overall situation and, in the end, reduces errors that are made by the user. In case that such an assistance system is dedicated to assist a person participating in traffic, for example, when operating a vehicle in which such an assistance system is mounted, this will lead to increased safety.” The incorporation of Wang with Shimazu and Ikeda creates a safer driving environment.
Regarding claim 2, Shimazu teaches the surrounding display device according to claim 1, wherein the display changer increases a transmittance of the guide line. ([0136] teaches the controller device can alter the guide lines in a way that increases the transmittance of the guide lines)
Regarding claim 4, Shimazu teaches the surrounding display device according to claim 1, wherein the display processor displays the guide line having a shape in which a line segment parallel to a direction of the mobile body and a line segment perpendicular to the direction of the mobile body are combined. ([0123] teaches the guide having “sidewalls 81a and 81b” which are the width of the vehicle and as seen in Fig. 20 they are parallel. [0124] teaches the guide can also have “distance wall images 82a, 82b, and 82c. These distance walls can be omitted as needed. As seen in Fig, 20 these distance walls are perpendicular to the sidewalls)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazu, Ikeda, and Wang in view of Zemek (US PG Pub 2024/0042855).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shimazu, Ikeda, and Wang teaches the surrounding display device according to claim 1.
The combination of Shimazu, Ikeda, and Wang does not teach wherein the display changer returns the display mode of the guide line to a state before the change when the detector does not detect the existence of the obstacle in the region for a predetermined time after the display mode of the guide line is changed.
However, Zemek teaches “wherein the change unit returns the display mode of the guide line to a state before the change when the detection unit does not detect the existence of the obstacle in the region for a predetermined time after the display mode of the guide line is changed.” (Figs. 3A and 3B show a guide line that can be considered analogous to the guide in the present application. The AR guide can be altered depending on the obstacles detected around the vehicle and as explained in [0048]-[0060] the system can alter the AR guide in any number of ways to improve object visibility. As explained in [0049] it can alter a portion of the AR guide to increase the transmittance to allow an object to be fully seen through the guide. [0060] further teaches that when the detected object is no longer detected the system can revert these changes to reset the display from Fig. 3B to Fig. 3A.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Shimazu, Ikeda, and Wang with Zemek; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the display of vehicle based guides to assist a driver and both can alter these guides based on the determination that an obstacle is present. As Zemek teaches in [0004]-[0007] the use of guides on a display can cause a driver to be distracted, by altering the guides to allow obstacles to be better seen this eliminates some of the worry of driver distraction. Reverting the guide would be an obvious step in the process as if the guide never reset after the object detected was no longer detected then the use of the guide would not be helpful
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okazaki (US PG Pub 2018/0172814) teaches an object detection device includes: a classifier that receives, from a radar device that transmits a transmission wave and receives a reflected wave that is the transmission wave reflected by an object around a subject vehicle, detection result information indicative of an intensity, an azimuth, and a Doppler velocity obtained from a Doppler frequency shift of the reflected wave, and determines whether the detection result information is first detection result information corresponding to a moving object or second detection result information corresponding to a still object; a calculator that calculates distances from the radar device to reflection points of the moving object on the basis of the first detection result information; and an output that supplies, to a predetermined device, first reflection point information indicating the distances of the reflection points and azimuths of the reflection points based on the radar device.
Takahashi (US PG Pub 2021/0323538) teaches a method of detecting a parkable space using only a sonar installed on a side of a vehicle, automatic parking assistance cannot be implemented at an early stage, and an environment in which automatic parking assistance is possible is limited. In a parking assistance device including a parkable space setting unit that sets a parkable space existing ahead of the vehicle based on information from a front detector, the parkable space setting unit corrects the parkable space based on information on the parkable space acquired by a side detector when the vehicle passes by the parkable space.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights