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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 10/29/2025. Claim(s) 1-4 have been amended. Claim(s) 1-4 are pending examination. Objections to the drawings have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. Interpretation of the claim(s) 1-4 under 112(f) has been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-4 is improper. Applicant asserts that the claim as amended integrates the mental process into a practical application.
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 102/103 rejections of claims 1-4 is improper. Applicant asserts that the newly amended limitation of “wherein the guide line is a fixed guide line that is fixed in location with respect to a current position of the mobile body,” is 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, see Pages 7-9, "Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101", filed 10/29/2025, with respect to claims 1-4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-4 has been withdrawn.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner is persuaded. In reference to example 37 of the subject matter eligibility, the applicant asserts that the claimed subject matter is substantially similar to the example. The claimed subject matter integrates abstract idea of changing a display into a practical application. The claims recite specific control steps of what and how to change the display. Therefore the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-4 would be withdrawn.
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 B, the examiner finds it moot. While the examiner does not necessarily agree that Shimazu does not teach that the lines are fixed, the examiner, in order to further prosecution the examiner will instead rely on the newly cited art of Ikeda, (US PG Pub 2010/0289634). Ikeda broadly teaches a driving assist apparatus includes: an image obtaining unit that obtains a peripheral image of a vehicle, which is captured by an image capturing device provided in the vehicle; a display device that is provided in the interior of the vehicle and displays the peripheral image; a display object generation unit that generates a display object including an index line serving as an index for assisting a driver who drives the vehicle; a vehicle state detection unit that detects at least one of behavior of the vehicle and a state of a driving operation; a display type determining unit that determines a transparent display type of the display object based on the detection result of the vehicle state detection unit; and a display control unit that superimposes and displays the display object on the peripheral image, which is displayed on the display device, based on the determined transparent display type. In particular the examiner would point to [0061], which 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. The use of such a fixed line would ensure that the person always knows the width of their car and the area the vehicle would back into, regardless of some kind of turning angle and/or any other changes in vehicle operation. The incorporation would provide a safe and effective way to maneuver a vehicle.
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).
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) and
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)
wherein the guide line is a fixed guide line that is fixed in location with respect to a current position of the mobile body.
Shimazu does not teach 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.
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 and Ikeda in view of Zemek (US PG Pub 2024/0042855).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shimazu and Ikeda teaches the surrounding display device according to claim 1.
The combination of Shimazu and Ikeda 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 and Ikeda 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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