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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a situation identification unit configured to identify…”, “a display control unit configured to control display…”, “an external instruction unit configured to instruct to display information…” in claims 1 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Fig. 11, 18, Paragraph 60: the HCU 10 includes an information acquisition unit 101, a situation identification unit 102, and a display control unit 103 as functional blocks for display control on the indicator 18. In addition, execution of processing of each functional block of the HCU 10 by the computer corresponds to execution of the vehicle display control method. Some or all of the functions executed by the HCU 10 may be configured as hardware by one or a plurality of ICs or the like. In addition, some or all of the functional blocks included in the HCU 10 may be realized by a combination of execution of software by a processor and a hardware member.
Paragraph 132: The HCU 10e includes an external instruction unit 104. The HCU 10e is similar to the HCU 10 of the first embodiment except for these components. The HCU 10e also corresponds to a vehicle display control device. In addition, execution of processing of each functional block of the HCU 10e by the computer corresponds to execution of the vehicle display control method.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 11-12, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][1] as being anticipated by Kubota; Masatoshi et al. (US 20200172123 A1)
In regards to claim 1, Kubota teaches, A vehicle display control device for a vehicle configured to be switched between non-monitoring-obligation automated driving that is automated driving without a surrounding monitoring obligation and monitoring-obligation driving that is driving with the surrounding monitoring obligation, the vehicle display control device comprising: (See abstract, A vehicle control system includes a display and a display controller configured to cause the display to display an image related to a state of a vehicle and perform control for switching display details to be displayed on the display when a predetermined event has occurred in the vehicle before driving assistance of the vehicle is started. Also see figs. 23-26, paragraph 180-203, switch between full non-monitoring-obligation automated driving (e.g. eyes off, hands off, assist “on”) and surrounding monitoring obligation (e.g. eyes off as “off”)
a situation identification unit configured to identify a situation of the vehicle; and (See paragraph 178, the scene (4) is a scene in which the host vehicle M follows a nearby vehicle m during a traffic jam and therefore the driving assistance of the host vehicle M is switched from the second degree to the third degree. The scene (5) is a scene in which the host vehicle M is executing low-speed following travel which is an example of the driving assistance of the third degree. Also see paragraph 182-183)
a display control unit configured to control display of travel related information on an indicator provided in a vehicle compartment of the vehicle, the travel related information being information related to traveling of the vehicle, wherein the display control unit configured to (See figs. 23-26, fig. 1, paragraph 101, The HMI 400 presents various types of information to the occupant in the vehicle and receives an input operation from the occupant. For example, the HMI 400 may include some or all of various types of display devices…fig. 24, trajectory image 602)
reduce the travel related information displayed on the indicator during the non-monitoring-obligation automated driving, compared to the travel related information displayed during the monitoring-obligation driving, and (See fig. 25, paragraphs 199-200, line-of-sight request image 650 is displayed instead of trajectory image 602 in fig. 23-24. Fig. 25 still depicts scenario where vehicle is currently under “non-monitoring-obligation automated driving” (see paragraph 201))
suppress reduction of the travel related information based on a vehicle situation identified by the situation identification unit during the non-monitoring-obligation automated driving, the vehicle situation excluding information about whether the vehicle is operated in the non-monitoring-obligation automated driving. (See fig. 24, associated paragraphs, trajectory image 602 being displayed while low-speed following travel is being executed)
In regards to claim 5, Kubota teaches The vehicle display control device according to claim 1, wherein the travel related information includes behavior related information that is information related to behavior of the vehicle itself, and the display control unit is configured to reduce the behavior related information displayed on the indicator during the non-monitoring-obligation automated driving, compared to the behavior related information displayed during the monitoring-obligation driving, and suppress reduction of the behavior related information during the non-monitoring-obligation automated driving based on the vehicle situation indicating gripping of a steering wheel or operating of an accelerator pedal by a vehicle driver. (See fig. 25, 31, and associated paragraphs, future trajectory image 602 is generated based on behavior of the vehicle itself and not driver driven. Fig. 31 includes situation that requires driver to grip steering wheel, and trajectory 602 is now displayed from fig. 25)
In regards to claim 11, Kubota teaches The vehicle display control device according to claim 1, wherein the travel related information includes behavior related information that is information related to behavior of the vehicle itself, and the display control unit is configured to increase the behavior related information based on the vehicle situation indicating traveling on a general road during automated driving at a specific level or higher, compared to the behavior related information displayed during driving at a level lower than the specific level, the specific level being a level at which both steering and acceleration/deceleration are assisted. (See fig. 23-24, associated paragraphs, behavior related information further includes surroundings detection image 610B on top of trajectory image 602 during third degree of driving assistance while second degree of driving assistance does not have surroundings detection image 610B and only trajectory image 602)
In regards to claim 12, Kubota teaches the vehicle display control device according to claim 11, wherein the display control unit is configured to further increase the behavior related information based on the vehicle situation indicating traveling at an intersection. (See fig. 24, paragraphs 184, 186-191, the surroundings detection image 610A is an image showing that the monitoring of the surroundings of the host vehicle M is being performed by the camera 10, the radar device 12, the finder 14, the physical object recognition device 16, and the external environment recognizer 321… the surroundings detection image 610B is an animation in which ripples spread outward from the center of the host vehicle M. The behavior is “increased” as external environment is monitored in real-time. Examiner recommends clarifying what it means by “increase” the behavior…information)
In regards to claim 19, Kubota teaches The vehicle display control device according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle is a remote operation vehicle operable in automated driving by a remote operation, the travel related information includes behavior related information that is information related to behavior of the vehicle itself, and the display control unit is configured to reduce the behavior related information based on the vehicle situation indicating the remote operation of the vehicle, compared to the behavior related information displayed during an operation that is not the remote operation, and suppress reduction of the behavior related information based on the vehicle situation indicating that the remote operation is required to be switched to an operation by an occupant of the vehicle. (Claim does not explicitly require “remote operation” being instruction received by vehicle from external source (e.g. source outside vehicle). See paragraph 61, For example, the vehicle system 1 includes a camera 10, a radar device 12, a finder 14, a physical object recognition device 16, a communication device 20, a navigation device 50, a map positioning unit (MPU) 60, a vehicle sensor 70, a driving operation element 80, a vehicle interior camera 90, a master controller 100, a driving assistance controller 200, an automated driving controller 300, a human machine interface (HMI) 400, a travel driving force output device 500, a brake device 510, and a steering device 520. Such devices and equipment are connected to each other by a multiplex communication line such as a controller area network (CAN) communication line, a serial communication line, or a wireless communication network. Wireless communication signals within the vehicle reasonably indicate “remote operation”. See figs. 25, 31, associated paragraphs, returning display of trajectory image 602 when requiring user operation of steering wheel)
Claims 21-22 are similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
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.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota; Masatoshi et al. (US 20200172123 A1) in view of OBATA; Naohiko et al. (US 20200377126 A1)
In regards to claim 15, Kubota teaches The vehicle display control device according to claim 1, wherein the travel related information includes behavior related information that is information related to behavior of the vehicle itself, and (See fig. 25, 31, and associated paragraphs, future trajectory image 602 is generated based on behavior of the vehicle itself and not driver driven.)
Kubota does not specifically teach, the display control unit is configured to control display on a fellow passenger indicator that is the indicator visually recognizable by a fellow passenger who is an occupant other than a vehicle driver, control display on a driver indicator that is the indicator for the vehicle driver, and make the behavior related information displayed on the fellow passenger indicator less than the behavior related information displayed on the driver indicator during the non-monitoring-obligation automated driving.
Obata further teaches, the display control unit is configured to control display on a fellow passenger indicator that is the indicator visually recognizable by a fellow passenger who is an occupant other than a vehicle driver, control display on a driver indicator that is the indicator for the vehicle driver, and make the behavior related information displayed on the fellow passenger indicator less than the behavior related information displayed on the driver indicator during the non-monitoring-obligation automated driving. (See Paragraph 184, figs. 23-28, There may be a case, for example, where while the information generated by the in-vehicle information system is displayed on the display arranged in the center console between the front of the driver's seat and the front of the passenger's seat in the case of the automatic driving level LV34, the same information is displayed on the HUD in the automatic driving level of LV2 or lower. Further, in a plurality of automatic driving levels of LV2 or lower, the same warning may be outputted separately by two types of output destination devices, i.e., the HUD and a vibration device arranged on the steering wheel.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the vehicle display control device of Kubota to further comprise display control device taught by Obata because limiting display presented to the driver during automatic driving level of LV2 or below can further enhance safety as drivers require more focus and attention on driving at that level.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota; Masatoshi et al. (US 20200172123 A1) in view of KIM; Byung Gil (US 20220009355 A1)
In regards to claim 17, Kubota teaches The vehicle display control device according to claim 1, wherein the travel related information includes behavior related information that is information related to behavior of the vehicle itself, (See fig. 25, 31, and associated paragraphs, future trajectory image 602 is generated based on behavior of the vehicle itself and not driver driven.)
Kubota does not specifically teach, the vehicle is an electric vehicle having regeneration modes different in magnitude of regenerative braking, and the display control unit is configured to change an amount of the behavior related information displayed on the indicator depending on a current regeneration mode of the vehicle indicated by the vehicle situation.
Kim further teaches, the vehicle is an electric vehicle having regeneration modes different in magnitude of regenerative braking, and the display control unit is configured to change an amount of the behavior related information displayed on the indicator depending on a current regeneration mode of the vehicle indicated by the vehicle situation. (See paragraphs 4-8, electric vehicle. Also see paragraphs 129-138, displaying regenerative braking level and constantly updating the regenerative braking level based on how vehicle is being driven, which encompasses level increasing or decreasing)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the vehicle display control device of Kubota to further comprise control device taught by Kim because efficiency of regenerative braking of electric vehicles by determining the regenerative braking level is improved (paragraph 8).
In regards to claim 18, Kubota-Kim teaches The vehicle display control device according to claim 17, wherein the behavior related information includes information related to the regenerative braking, and the display control unit is configured to increase an amount of the information related to the regenerative braking with increase in magnitude of regenerative braking of the regeneration mode being used. (See Kim paragraphs 4-8, electric vehicle. Also see paragraphs 129-138, displaying regenerative braking level and constantly updating the regenerative braking level based on how vehicle is being driven, which encompasses level increasing or decreasing)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 13-14, 16, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki; Yukio et al. (US 20190111943 A1) discloses: Until a lapse of a prescribed time from switching to a manual drive mode, a special judgment criterion for judging whether to generate an attention-arousing event is employed so that an attention-arousing event is generated more frequently than in an ordinary state and information is presented to a driver in a different expression form than in the ordinary situation. Since after occurrence of a handover the frequency of arousing attention of the driver is increased and attention of the driver is aroused in a different form, the driver realizes the switching to the manual drive mode soon and hence mode confusion can be avoided. Arousing attention of the driver is started earlier than in the ordinary situation by changing the judgment criterion for judging whether to generate an attention-arousing event (See abstract, figs. 9-10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668