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
The amendment filed December 11, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6 remain
pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 11, 2025 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6 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 argued that Mimura in view of Rebhan does not teach the features of amended claims 1, 6.
In this office action, Kawate is cited to reject the amended features of the independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 8, 9, “predicted to be a driving lane” should be “predicted to be in a driving lane”. Appropriate correction is required.
((display show represent) SAME vehicle SAME (icon symbol))
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura (US 20200079379 A1), which was cited by Applicant in view of Kawate et al. (US 20210155159 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mimura discloses:
An autonomous driving system comprising {paragraph [0038] discloses autonomous driving control. Fig. 1 discloses automated driving control device 100}:
a vehicle detection device for detecting surrounding vehicles present in surroundings of a host vehicle {[0061] and [0062] disclose a recognizer, construed as the vehicle detector, which detects surrounding vehicles. Fig. 1 discloses the camera 10, radar 12 and object recognizing device 16};
a display device for displaying the surrounding vehicles detected by the vehicle detection device as vehicle icons {[0003]: displaying lanes near a subject vehicle and icons representing the subject vehicle and other vehicles on a display screen}; and
a processor configured to: control display content of the display device; control autonomous driving of the host vehicle {abstract: display controller, driving controller};
wherein the processor is configured to control acceleration and deceleration of the host vehicle so that the host vehicle does not approach the vehicle necessitating deceleration {[0094]: for deceleration or acceleration for moving the subject vehicle M}.
Mimura does not disclose:
set, as a vehicle necessitating deceleration, a surrounding vehicle present on an adjacent lane of the host vehicle and predicted to be a driving lane of the host vehicle in front of the host vehicle among the surrounding vehicles detected by the vehicle detection device, when a plurality of surrounding vehicles detected by the vehicle detection device are displayed on the display device, the processor is configured to display a vehicle icon of the vehicle necessitating deceleration so that the vehicle necessitating deceleration is emphasized the most among vehicle icons of the plurality of surrounding vehicles.
Kawate teaches setting, as a vehicle necessitating deceleration, a surrounding vehicle present on an adjacent lane of the host vehicle and predicted to be a driving lane of the host vehicle in front of the host vehicle among the surrounding vehicles detected by the vehicle detection device in Fig. 5(B) and paragraph (0091]: In FIG. 5(B), a cut-in vehicle (second object) C2 has appeared. Examiner notes that a cut-in vehicle necessitates deceleration of the own vehicle. Kawate teaches emphasizing most the icon of the vehicle necessitating deceleration among vehicle icons of the plurality of surrounding vehicles in Figs. 5(B) and [0092]: In FIG. 5(B), by lowering the visibility of the first overlaid images C1 a and C1 b according to the distance from the vehicle (host vehicle) 20, a visibility control is executed such that, for example, the visibility of the second overlaid image C2 of the cut-in vehicle (second object) B2 is the highest… paying the greatest attention to the cut-in object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vehicle necessitating deceleration emphasizing feature of Kawate with the described invention of Mimura in order for the driver to pay the greatest attention to the cut-in vehicle.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 6.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura in view of Kawate and in further view of Muraki (JP2017181125A).
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, modified Mimura does not disclose: wherein the processer is configured to display the vehicle icon of the vehicle necessitating deceleration present on the adjacent lane of the host vehicle at a hue different from the vehicle icons of the remaining surrounding vehicles.
Muraki teaches use of different hue in vehicle display in paragraph [0051] of English translation: the degree of emphasis can be represented by the amount of color change from the basic color. The amount of change in color is at least one of hue, saturation, and lightness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the different hue display feature of Muraki with the described invention of modified Mimura in order to facilitate displaying differently.
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, Muraki teaches: wherein the processer is configured to display the vehicle icon of the vehicle necessitating deceleration present on the adjacent lane of the host vehicle in a first display mode, and the vehicle icon of a first preceding vehicle positioned in front of the host vehicle in the driving lane of the host vehicle and closest to the host vehicle in a second display mode, which is different in hue from the first display mode {[0051]: change in hue}.
In relation to this limitation, Mimura teaches differently displaying the vehicle necessitating deceleration present on the adjacent lane and the preceding vehicle in Figs. 7 and 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the different hue display feature of Muraki with the described invention of modified Mimura in order to facilitate displaying differently.
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 3, Muraki teaches: wherein the first display mode is a chromatic color, and the second display mode is an achromatic color {[0031]: an achromatic color, a chromatic color}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the achromatic color and chromatic color features of Muraki with the described invention of modified Mimura in order to facilitate displaying differently.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 3, Muraki teaches: wherein, when a surrounding vehicle present on the adjacent lane of the host vehicle and displayed on the display device is set to the vehicle necessitating deceleration, the processor is configured to change the display mode of the vehicle icon of the surrounding vehicle to the first display mode {[0051]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the different hue display feature of Muraki with the described invention of modified Mimura in order to facilitate displaying differently.
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 CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights