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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending in this application.
Claims 1, 14, and 16 are presented as currently amended claims.
Claims 2-13, 15 and 17-18 are presented as original claims.
Claim 19 is newly presented.
No claims are cancelled.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
The instant application contains numerous claims which use “and/or” language. Claims using this construction will be interpreted as if writing using the preferred method of "at least one of A and B" consistent with Ex Parte Gross (13858627 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)). In some claims, the scope of the list of possible alternatives is unclear and further 112(b) rejections have been applied in the appropriate sections.
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.
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 1-8, 10, 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behring (DE 102019117704 A1) in view of Bangalore et al. (US 20220350995 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20260014862 A1) (the combination of which will be referred to as 'combination Behring' hereinafter). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 1, Behring teaches a method for providing:
a display of a traffic situation on a display device (Behring: ¶ 005; a control unit of an ego-vehicle, which is designed to display an image, in particular an environment image relating to a traffic situation) of an assisted, automated and/or autonomously driving vehicle, the method comprising: (Behring: ¶ 015; steering movement can be... B. automatically by an actuator of the vehicle) acquiring surroundings data in surroundings of the vehicle; (Behring: ¶ 007; traffic situation in the vicinity of the ego vehicle can be determined based on environmental data from one or more environmental sensors (e.g., cameras) . . . determining a maximum number of objects for the display of the traffic situation on the display device on the surrounding area;. . . (Behring: ¶ 180; procedure 610 includes selecting 611 a maximum of N (e.g. B. with N=1, or N<2) road users 120 in each of one or more different environment sectors 401 , 402 , 403 , 404 , 405 of the environment) selecting relevant and/or prioritized objects and/or lanes for the display of the traffic situation on the display device on the surrounding area based on the maximum number of objects. (Behring: ¶ 181; the number of road user symbols displayed simultaneously can be limited to N per surrounding sector)
Behring does not explicitly teach: selecting a surrounding area for the display of the traffic situation on the display device; however, Bangalore does teach:
selecting a surrounding area for the display of the traffic situation on the display device; and controlling the display of the traffic situation on the display device in the surrounding area on which the relevant and/or prioritized objects and/or lanes are visualized, (Bangalore: ¶ 103; program may configure the system to select several areas of higher priority in at least one of the images. Accordingly, the system may select an area 710 corresponding to a pothole 712 as a higher priority area. Further, the system may select an area 714 corresponding to a tunnel 716 as a higher priority area. In addition, the system may select an area 718 corresponding to a tracked vehicle 720 as another higher priority area. Furthermore, the system may select a left side area 722 corresponding to a concrete road barrier 724 as a lower priority area)wherein a changing traffic situation in the surroundings of the vehicle is displayed on the display device. (Bangalore: ¶ 045; program 128 may receive the images captured by the cameras of the camera system 108 and may perform processing on the images to perform recognition for the current travel path 104 of the vehicle 102 based on one or more dynamically reconfigured disparity maps).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bangalore with the teachings of Behring because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improving safety by reducing the computer processing requirements of a ADAS systems (Bangalore: ¶ 033).
Behring does not explicitly teach: based on information about a road type of a road on which the vehicle is driving, a traffic density of the road on which the vehicle is driving, and/or a speed limit of the road on which the vehicle is driving; however, Lee does teach:
based on information about a road type of a road on which the vehicle is driving, (Lee: ¶ 022; based on the recognition of the situation requiring the driver to keep their eyes forward, the processor may correct matched AE signage data in such a manner that the display region included in the traveling image or the maximum of digital signage pieces displayed in the display region) a traffic density of the road on which the vehicle is driving, and/or a speed limit of the road on which the vehicle is driving; (Lee: ¶ 258; the occurrence of the situation requiring the driver to keep their eyes forward may refer to one of the following: . . . , detection of a traffic congestion situation in the vicinity of the vehicle, detection of a pedestrian protection region, entering of a speed limit region by the vehicle, or occurrence of a decrease in visible distance based on road information or weather information, each of which is based on the traveling environmental information and the sensing data of the vehicle.) (Lee: ¶ 031; In addition, on the basis of traveling environmental information, such as information about a traffic congestion section . . . the display of the AR digital signage can be restricted in such a manner that the driver's view ahead of the vehicle is not hidden)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee with the teachings of Behring because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improving safety by “. . . accurately recognizing a section or situation requiring a driver to keep their eyes forward [and by] restriction of, the display of the AR digital signage.” (Lee: ¶ 012).
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Bangalore further teaches:
wherein the selecting the surrounding area includes dynamically selecting the surrounding area. (Bangalore: ¶ 103; program may configure the system to select several areas of higher priority in at least one of the images. Accordingly, the system may select an area 710 corresponding to a pothole 712 as a higher priority area)
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Bangalore further teaches:
wherein the selecting the relevant and/or prioritized objects and/or lanes includes dynamically selecting the relevant and/or prioritized objects and/or lanes. (Bangalore: ¶ 103; system may select an area 718 corresponding to a tracked vehicle 720 as another higher priority area.)
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring further teaches:
wherein the acquiring surroundings data includes determining lane data (Behring: ¶ 017; in response to the detected lane event, to display the road user symbol for the road user (especially for the ego vehicle) at a second lateral position within the displayed lane that differs from the first lateral position.) "including a number of lanes, a direction of travel on a lane, a lane type, (Behring: ¶ 015; lane-changing event can be a steering movement of a steering device (e.g. B. of the steering wheel) of the Ego vehicle)" "a lane marking, a lane width, a lane orientation and/or a lane course, and/or object data including an object type, an object position, a distance to the vehicle, a relative speed to the vehicle (Behring: ¶ 015; lane event may include a notification or intervention by an emergency lane assistant of the Ego vehicle to form an emergency lane)" and/or a relative orientation to the vehicle. (Behring: ¶ 014; the lane event may be related to a lateral positioning of the road user (especially the ego vehicle) within the actual lane and /or to a lateral guidance of the road user)
Regarding claim 5, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Bangalore further teaches:
wherein the selecting the surrounding area takes into account lane data and/or object data in the surroundings of the vehicle. (Bangalore: ¶ 103; recognition program may configure the system to select several areas of higher priority in at least one of the images. Accordingly, the system may select an area 710 corresponding to a pothole 712 as a higher priority area.)
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring further teaches:
wherein the selecting the surrounding area takes into account at least one distance to the vehicle in at least one direction with respect to the vehicle. (Behring: ¶ 136; the road user 120 with the highest relevance for the ego-vehicle 110 and/or with the smallest distance to the ego-vehicle 110 can be selected.)
Regarding claim 7, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 6. Behring further teaches:
wherein the at least one distance includes a first distance in a direction of travel determined based on at least one operating parameter of the vehicle including a speed of the vehicle and/or an acquisition range and/or visibility range of at least one sensor of the vehicle, and/or wherein the at least one distance includes a second distance in the direction of travel determined based on at least one navigation parameter including a planned route, the direction of travel and/or an expected turning direction. (Behring: ¶ 014; the lane event may be related to a lateral positioning of the road user (especially the ego vehicle) within the actual lane and /or to a lateral guidance of the road user)
Regarding claim 8, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 6. Behring further teaches:
"wherein the at least one distance includes a distance in a vehicle transverse direction determined based on at least one traffic parameter including a number of lanes, a direction of travel on a lane, a lane type, a lane marking, a lane width, a lane orientation, a road course and/or traffic density. (Behring: ¶ 184; determining 622 that, due to a change in the positioning of the second road user 110, 120 relative to the first road user 110, 120, the second road
user symbol 210, 220 penetrates into a border zone)"
Regarding claim 10, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring further teaches:
wherein the determining the maximum number of objects takes into account lane data and/or object data. (Behring: ¶ 184; determining 622 that, due to a change in the positioning of the second road user 110, 120 relative to the first road user 110, 120, the second road user symbol 210, 220 penetrates into a border zone) (Behring: ¶ 185; in response to the fact that the second road user symbol 210, 220 intrudes into the border zone 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, includes causing 623 that the second road user symbol 210, 220 is at least partially hidden) (Behring: ¶ 141; debouncing can be provided for the showing and/or hiding of symbols 220 in a
sector 401, 402, 403, 404, 405 in order to avoid disturbing and confusing display effects
caused by flickering of symbols)"
Regarding claim 12, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring further teaches:
wherein the selecting the relevant and/or prioritized objects and/or lanes is carried out adaptively, and/or wherein the selecting the relevant and/or prioritized objects is carried out using a prioritization function and/or a characteristic diagram. (Behring: ¶ 184; determining 622 that, due to a change in the positioning of the second road user 110, 120 relative to the first road user 110, 120, the second road user symbol 210, 220 penetrates into a border zone) (Behring: ¶ 185; in response to the fact that the second road user symbol 210, 220 intrudes into the border zone 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, includes causing 623 that the second road user symbol 210, 220 is at least partially hidden)
Regarding claim 13, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring further teaches:
wherein the selecting the relevant and/or prioritized objects and/or lanes takes into account one or more active driving assistance systems including assistance systems for assisted, automated or autonomous driving, assistance systems for assisted, automated or autonomous keeping a distance from a vehicle in front, assistance systems for assisted, automated or autonomous lane keeping, assistance systems for assisted, automated or autonomous overtaking, assistance systems for assisted, automated or autonomous monitoring of a blind spot, assistance systems for assisted, automated or autonomous turning and/or assistance systems for parking the vehicle. (Behring: ¶ 015; lane event can be caused by...B. include a warning from the lane keeping assist system of the Ego vehicle)
Regarding claim 14, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring further teaches:
displaying the display of the traffic situation in the display device on the surrounding area (Behring: ¶ 018; a stable and consistent representation of a traffic situation to be provided on the screen of the ego vehicle) on which the relevant and/or prioritized objects (Behring: ¶ 141; vehicle 120 repeatedly enters and exits a specific sector 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, thereby "displacing" another vehicle 120 from the display priority there) and/or lanes are visualized. (Behring: ¶ 020; symbol for a road user in the vicinity of the ego vehicle may therefore only be displayed at a single lateral position within a displayed lane (apart from an animated transition to another lane))
Regarding claim 15, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring further teaches:
non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 1. (Behring: ¶ 104; storage medium may contain a software program that is configured to run on a processor and thereby execute at least one of the procedures)
Regarding claim 16, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring further teaches:
a processor; and a non-transitory memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the control unit to carry out the method according to claim 1. (Behring: ¶ 104; storage medium may contain a software program that is configured to run on a processor and thereby execute at least one of the procedures)
Regarding claim 17, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 16. Behring further teaches:
the control unit according to claim 16. (Behring: ¶ 005; a control unit of an ego-vehicle, which is designed to display an image, in particular an environment image relating to a traffic situation)
Regarding claim 18, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 17. Behring further teaches:
the control unit according to claim 17. (Behring: ¶ 005; a control unit of an ego-vehicle, which is designed to display an image, in particular an environment image relating to a traffic situation)
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Behring as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanizaki et al. (US 20060220923 A1).
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring does not explicitly teach:
wherein the determining the maximum number of objects is carried out in a parameterized manner, and/or wherein the determining the maximum number of objects is parameterized; however, Tanizaki does teach:
wherein the determining the maximum number of objects is carried out in a parameterized manner, and/or wherein the determining the maximum number of objects is parameterized. (Tanizaki: ¶ 075; contraction scale of the summarized map is changed in accordance with the distance between the vehicle position and the destination, while at the same time changing the number of objects to be displayed thereon. Further, the number of objects to be displayed may be changed in accordance with the running speed of the vehicle.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tanizaki with the teachings of Behring because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improving map readability at high speeds. (Tanizaki: ¶ 005).
Regarding claim 11, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Combination Behring does not explicitly teach:
wherein the determining the maximum number of objects takes into account at least one operating parameter of the vehicle including a speed of the vehicle and/or a state of a direction indicator, and/or wherein the determining the maximum number of objects takes into account at least one navigation parameter including a planned route, a direction of travel and/or an expected turning direction; however, Tanizaki does teach:
wherein the determining the maximum number of objects takes into account at least one operating parameter of the vehicle including a speed of the vehicle (Tanizaki: ¶ 075; contraction scale of the summarized map is changed in accordance with the distance between the vehicle position and the destination, while at the same time changing the number of objects to be displayed thereon. Further, the number of objects to be displayed may be changed in accordance with the running speed of the vehicle.) and/or a state of a direction indicator, and/or wherein the determining the maximum number of objects takes into account at least one navigation parameter including a planned route, a direction of travel and/or an expected turning direction. (Tanizaki: ¶ 070; the wide-area map is displayed by being greatly contracted (to a sufficiently small contraction scale .alpha.). Then, the number of objects displayed is reduced in proportion to the adjust value z=k.alpha., and less information required to guide the vehicle becomes available)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tanizaki with the teachings of Behring because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improving map readability at high speeds. (Tanizaki: ¶ 005).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Behring as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goddard (US 20140156187 A1).
Regarding claim 19, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring does not explicitly teach:
wherein the maximum number of objects is determined based on the information about the road type of the road on which the vehicle is driving, and wherein the information about the road type of the road on which the vehicle is driving includes information regarding whether the road is a freeway, a highway, or a city street; however, Goddard does teach:
wherein the maximum number of objects is determined based on the information about the road type of the road on which the vehicle is driving, and wherein the information about the road type of the road on which the vehicle is driving includes information regarding whether the road is a freeway, a highway, or a city street. (Goddard: ¶ 036; map display only exhibits road labels for roads intersecting a current route, that are also of a same function class or of a more significant function class as both a road being currently navigated and a road that is to be navigated following an upcoming maneuver.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Goddard with the teachings of Behring because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of reducing map clutter that results from static labeling. (Goddard: ¶ 015).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to claims 1-18 are persuasive and the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied claim objection are persuasive and the objection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied drawing objection are persuasive and the objection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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. Applicant argues that while
Behring teaches that the procedure 610 includes selecting 611 a maximum of N (e.g., with N=1, or N<2) road users 120 in each of one or more different environment sectors 401, 402, 403, 404, 405 of the environment of the ego vehicle 110[, n]othing has been found, or pointed to, in Behring which teaches or suggests that the maximum of N road users 120 is determined based on information about a road type, a traffic density, and/or a speed limit. Moreover, nothing has been found, or pointed to, in Bangalore and Tanizaki that is believed to remedy the deficiencies of Behring identified above. (Applicant’s Arguments filed March 30, 2026, pgs. 8-9).
Newly applied prior art Lee et al. (US 20260014862 A1) teaches a method of controlling the display of a plurality of travel information to an augmented reality display wherein the amount of information display varies based upon the driver workload, speed, nearby speed limits, the possibility of a pedestrian interaction, and traffic congestion among other variables. Consequently, Applicant's arguments with respect to obviousness of claims 1-19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the new art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Ezaki (US 20230024247 A1) which discloses “a display control unit configured to determine a display mode and a display position of one or a plurality of display objects displayed on the one or plurality of display regions, in accordance with the size of the one or plurality of display regions, wherein the display control unit displays a specific display object on the boundary line, and moves display of the specific display object along with moving of the boundary line”.
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 CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights