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 .
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyori (US 11325472 B2), and further in view of Park (US 20180225975 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nishiyori teaches a gaze directing system for directing a gaze of a driver of a vehicle (col. 5, lines 35-37: “With such a configuration, the line-of-sight guidance device 100 can guide the line of sight of the driver to the attention target that the driver should look at with attention.”), comprising:
a plurality of displays located on or within the vehicle (col. 4, lines 24-35: “Described in the program are the functions in which the line-of-sight guidance device 100 acquires the information on the peripheral state of the vehicle, acquires the information on the line of sight of the driver driving the vehicle, and performs to control the two or more display devices included in the predetermined visual field in association with the line of sight among the plurality of display devices mounted on the vehicle, to display the line-of-sight guidance display that is a display for guiding the line of sight of the driver from the first attention target indicated by the line of sight to the second attention target associated with the peripheral state of the vehicle.”); and
an electronic control unit (ECU) coupled to the plurality of displays (col. 3, lines 32-37: “The display control unit 30 acquires the first attention target actually watched by the driver based on the information on the line of sight of the driver acquired by the line-of-sight acquisition unit 20. The display control unit 30 acquires the second attention target to be watched by the driver.”) and configured to:
select a display of the plurality of displays or a portion of the plurality of displays that the driver should gaze at based on one or more conditions of the plurality of conditions (col. 3, lines 39-42: “Further, among a plurality of display devices, the display control unit 30 selects two or more display devices included in the predetermined visual field in association with the line of sight of the driver.”); and
generate a gaze indicator that is displayed by at least one display of the plurality of displays to direct the gaze of the driver to the selected display or the selected portion of the plurality of displays (col. 3, lines 45-50: “The display control unit 30 controls the two or more selected display devices to display a line-of-sight guidance display. The line-of-sight guidance display is a display for guiding the line of sight of the driver from the first attention target to the second attention target.”).
Nishiyori fails to teach the electronic control unit (ECU) configured to determine or receive a plurality of conditions of the vehicle including a current shift position, a current vehicle speed, a current steering angle, and a current turn signal status.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches an electronic control unit (ECU) coupled to the display (par. 0091: “The display unit 141 may display information processed by the controller 170.”; par. 0117: “The controller 170 may be called an electronic control unit (ECU).”) and configured to:
determine or receive a plurality of conditions of the vehicle including a current shift position (par. 0114: “The interface unit 180 may receive vehicle speed information, rotation angle information of the steering wheel or gearshift information.”), a current vehicle speed (par. 0114, as above), a current steering angle (par. 0114, as above), and a current turn signal status (par. 0113: “The interface unit 180 may receive turn signal information.”).
It would have been obvious to one familiar in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the information acquired by Park’s invention into the gaze directing system of Nishiyori. Doing so would allow the system to better determine what information is relevant to display to a driver; e.g. if a driver indicates with their turn signal that they intend to change lanes, guiding their gaze to a view of the left side of the vehicle in the event another vehicle is detected in their blind spot.
Regarding claim 2, Nishiyori and Park teach the gaze directing system of claim 1. Nishiyori further teaches one or more cameras coupled to the ECU and configured to capture real-time video data of one or more fields of view of a surrounding area of the vehicle (col. 6, lines 41-45: “The vehicle peripheral state detection device 110 may detect the peripheral state of the vehicle in a constant manner. The vehicle peripheral state detection device 110 is, for example, a camera, a radar or a sensor.”);
wherein the ECU is further configured to transmit the real-time video data to the selected display (col. 7, lines 53-56: “The processing circuit is connected to the vehicle peripheral state detection device 110, the line-of-sight detection device 120, and the plurality of display devices via an input/output interface 140.”).
Regarding claim 3, Nishiyori and Park teach the gaze directing system of claim 2. Nishiyori further teaches wherein the one or more fields of view include a left rearward field of view with respect to the vehicle, a right rearward field of view with respect to the vehicle, a first rearward field of view with respect to the vehicle, and/or a second rearward field of view with respect to the vehicle (col. 7, line 66 – col. 8, line 7: “FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating the plurality of display devices mounted on the vehicle according to Embodiment 2. The first display device 131 is an infotainment device. The second display device 132 is an electronic meter cluster in which small display units are clustered. The third display device 133 is a head-up display. The fourth display device 134 and the fifth display device 135 are electronic side mirrors. The sixth display device 136 is an electronic rearview mirror.”).
Regarding claim 4, Nishiyori and Park teach the gaze directing system of claim 3. Nishiyori further teaches wherein the plurality of displays include:
an infotainment display configured to display the left rearward field of view, the right rearward field of view, the first rearward field of view, the second rearward field of view, and/or the gaze indicator (col. 7, line 66 – col. 8, line 7, as above in claim 3 rejection); and
a digital rearview mirror configured to display the first rearward field of view, the second rearward field of view, and/or the gaze indicator (col. 7, line 66 – col. 8, line 7, as above in claim 3 rejection).
Regarding claim 5, Nishiyori and Park teach the gaze directing system of claim 1. Nishiyori further teaches wherein the plurality of displays include two or more of:
an infotainment display located within a cabin of the vehicle (col. 7, line 66 – col. 8, line 7, as above in claim 3 rejection);
a digital rearview mirror located within the cabin (col. 7, line 66 – col. 8, line 7, as above in claim 3 rejection);
a digital left side view mirror located within the cabin or on a left side of the vehicle (col. 7, line 66 – col. 8, line 7, as above in claim 3 rejection);
a digital right side view mirror located within the cabin or on a right side of the vehicle (col. 7, line 66 – col. 8, line 7, as above in claim 3 rejection); or
a digital gauge cluster located within the cabin (col. 7, line 66 – col. 8, line 7, as above in claim 3 rejection).
Regarding claim 6, Nishiyori and Park teach the gaze directing system of claim 5.
Neither Nishiyori nor Park teach wherein to select the display of the plurality of displays or the portion of the plurality of displays that the driver should gaze at, the ECU is configured to at least one of:
select the infotainment display or the gauge cluster when the current shift position indicates the vehicle is in reverse;
select the infotainment display or the gauge cluster when:
the current shift position indicates the vehicle is in drive or neutral,
the vehicle speed is less than a vehicle speed threshold, and
the current steering angle is greater than or equal to a steering angle threshold;
select the infotainment display or the gauge cluster when:
the current shift position indicates the vehicle is in drive or neutral,
the vehicle speed is less than a vehicle speed threshold, and
the current turn signal status indicates a turn signal of the vehicle is activated
select the digital rearview mirror when:
the current shift position indicates the vehicle is in drive or neutral,
the vehicle speed is greater than or equal to the vehicle speed threshold, and
the current turn signal status indicates the turn signal of the vehicle is not activated;
select the digital rearview mirror when:
the current shift position indicates the vehicle is in drive or neutral,
the vehicle speed is less than the vehicle speed threshold,
the current steering angle is less than the steering angle threshold, and
the current turn signal status indicates the turn signal of the vehicle is not activated;
or select the digital left side view mirror or the digital right side view mirror when:
the current shift position indicates the vehicle is in drive or neutral,
the vehicle speed is greater than the vehicle speed threshold, and
the current turn signal status indicates the turn signal of the vehicle is activated.
However, it would have been obvious to one familiar in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Park’s considerations of shift position, vehicle speed, and turn signal status into the gaze directing system of Nishiyori, as evidenced by claim 1. If one familiar in the art were to include Park’s considerations into the gaze directing system of Nishiyori, it would be an obvious innovation to reference such information when determining which of the displays to display pertinent information on, as this directly relates to the motivation one familiar in the art would likely have for combining Nishiyori and Park’s inventions.
Regarding claim 7, Nishiyori and Park teach the gaze directing system of claim 1. Nishiyori further teaches wherein the gaze indicator is a graphical icon including a graphical representation of at least one display of the plurality of displays (col. 9, lines 45-49: “The line-of-sight guidance display displayed in cooperation with each display device includes, for example, characters, or a moving image in which figures, or symbols are used. The line-of-sight guidance display includes, for example, an animation using an icon or the like.”).
Regarding claim 8, Nishiyori and Park teach the gaze directing system of claim 7. Nishiyori further teaches wherein the gaze indicator indicates the selected display by flashing and/or highlighting a graphical representation of the selected display and/or by including an arrow pointing toward the graphical representation of the selected display (col. 9, lines 1-7: “In Step S70, the display control unit 30 controls the selected display devices to display the line-of-sight guidance display. FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating an example of the line-of-sight guidance display. Here, the display control unit 30 controls each display device to display an arrow indicating a direction from each display device toward the second attention target Y.”).
Regarding claim 9, Nishiyori and Park teach the gaze directing system of claim 1. Park further teaches one or more vehicle sensors electrically connected to the ECU and configured to detect or indicate the one or more conditions (par. 0163: “The controller 170 may receive sensor information from the controller 170 or the sensing unit 160 through the interface unit 180. Here, the sensor information may include at least one of vehicle direction information, vehicle location information (GPS information), vehicle orientation information, vehicle speed information, vehicle acceleration information, vehicle inclination information, vehicle drive/reverse information, battery information, fuel information, tire information, vehicular lamp information, interior temperature information, interior humidity information and steering wheel rotation information.”).
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 1, and is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 5, except that it depends on claim 17 as opposed to claim 1. As such, it is rejected on similar grounds as claim 5.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 6, except that it depends on claim 18 as opposed to claim 1. As such, it is rejected on similar grounds as claim 6.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 8, except that it depends on claim 17 as opposed to claim 7. As such, it is rejected on similar grounds as claim 8.
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyori (US 11325472 B2), and further in view of Park (US 20180225975 A1) and Gali (US 12049253 B2).
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 1, and differs only in that the gaze directing system is here intended to direct the gaze of a driver of a vehicle towing a trailer, and comprises one or more cameras configured to capture real-time video data of one or more fields of view of a surrounding area of the vehicle and the trailer.
Nishiyori and Park teach the system of claim 1 (as above in claim 1 rejection), but fail to teach the unique aspects of claim 10.
Gali teaches a gaze directing system for directing a gaze of a driver of a vehicle towing a trailer (col. 2, lines 51-55: “Referring now to the drawings and the illustrative embodiments depicted therein, a vehicle 10 includes a trailer maneuver guidance system 12 that is operable to guide the driver in maneuvering the vehicle 10 and trailer 14 toward a desired or selected location.”), comprising:
one or more cameras configured to capture real-time video data of one or more fields of view of a surrounding area of the vehicle and the trailer (col. 9, lines 55-66: “The trailer maneuver guidance system 12 includes at least one exterior viewing vehicle-based imaging sensor or camera, such as a rearward viewing imaging sensor or camera 16 (and the system may optionally include multiple exterior viewing imaging sensors or cameras, such as a sideward/rearward viewing camera 18, 20 at respective sides of the vehicle), and a rearward viewing trailer-based camera 22, which capture image data representative of the respective scene exterior of the vehicle and trailer and in the respective field of view, with the cameras each having a lens for focusing images at or onto an imaging array or imaging plane or imager of the cameras (FIG. 1).”).
It would have been obvious to one familiar in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the trailer-based camera of Gali if one wished to implement the system taught by Nishiyori and Park in a vehicle possessing a trailer. It is well-known in the art that trailers often serve to obstruct the rearward view of a driver, creating an obvious need for a guidance system like the one taught by Nishiyori and Park to facilitate safe driving.
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 3, except that it depends on claim 10 as opposed to claim 2. As such, it is rejected on similar grounds as claim 3.
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 4, except that it depends on claim 11 as opposed to claim 3. As such, it is rejected on similar grounds as claim 4.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 5, except that it depends on claim 10 as opposed to claim 1. As such, it is rejected on similar grounds as claim 5.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 6, except that it depends on claim 13 as opposed to claim 5. As such, it is rejected on similar grounds as claim 6.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 7, except that it depends on claim 10 as opposed to claim 1. As such, it is rejected on similar grounds as claim 7.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 8, except that it depends on claim 15 as opposed to claim 7. As such, it is rejected on similar grounds as claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 and 17-20 under Baur (US 11794651 B2), further in view of Gali (US 12049253 B2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nishiyori (US 11325472 B2), and further in view of Park (US 20180225975 A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10-16 under Baur (US 11794651 B2), further in view of Gali (US 12049253 B2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nishiyori (US 11325472 B2), and further in view of Park (US 20180225975 A1) and Gali (US 12049253 B2).
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 RYAN A BARHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30am-5pm EST.
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, Xiao Wu, can be reached at (571) 272-7761. 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.
/RYAN ALLEN BARHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613