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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s submitted on 09/13/2024, 09/03/2025 and 10/15/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Japanese Patent Application No JP2020-146391, filed on August 31, 2020.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 12-13 of copending Application No. 17/406,420 (US12114241B2) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application has similar claims than the similar but broader claims of the reference application.
This is a non-provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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: an information acquisition section configured to, display section and a display control section configured to as in SPEC (pages 42 and 67) in claims 1-8.
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.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Re Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites:
A display control device installed in a vehicle configured to enable autonomous driving, the display control device comprising:
an information acquisition section configured to acquire information relating to a peripheral vehicle that is present ahead of the vehicle and in a subject vehicle lane in which the vehicle is currently traveling,
and information relating to a vehicle requiring caution that is present outside of the subject vehicle lane and has implications for control during the autonomous driving;
and a display control section configured to display an image of the peripheral vehicle, regarding which information has been acquired by the information acquisition section, on a display section provided inside a cabin of the vehicle,
and to additionally display, on the display section, an image of the vehicle requiring caution, by employing a different display mode from that for the image of the peripheral vehicle, in a case in which information relating to the vehicle requiring caution has been acquired by the information acquisition section.
Under Step 1 Claim 1 is a system claim same as claims 2-7.
Under Step 2A -Prong 1:
The identified claim limitations that recite an abstract idea fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. These fall under mental process.
Claim 1 recites “autonomous driving; and
Under Step 2A - Prong 2; the claims recite the additional elements of “a display control device installed in a vehicle configured to enable autonomous driving, the display control device comprising”, “an information acquisition section”, “a display control section configured to display”, “the information acquisition section, on a display section provided inside a cabin of the vehicle” and “to additionally display, on the display section, an image” steps is not more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1-7 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, the method claim 8 and the processor claim 9 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 outlined above.
Dependent claims 2-7 Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-9 are not patent-eligible.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Mimura (US 2020/0079379 A1) in view of Kimura (US 2017/0240109 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mimura discloses a display control device installed in a vehicle configured to enable autonomous driving, the display control device comprising: (see Mimura figure 2 and para “0038” “a display device displays results of recognition of the vicinity of a vehicle when the vehicle performs automated driving (autonomous driving) control”),
an information acquisition section configured to acquire information relating to a peripheral vehicle that is present ahead of the vehicle and in a subject vehicle lane in which the vehicle is currently traveling (see Mimura figure 8 and paras “0063” and “0097” “a display that displays an image; a recognizer that recognizes objects including other vehicles present in the vicinity of a subject vehicle; a driving controller that generates a target trajectory of the subject vehicle on the basis of states of the objects recognized by the recognizer” and “FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating one example of an image IM1 displayed on the second display 32B…the subject vehicle M runs in a lane L1, and another vehicle m1 is a vehicle running ahead that runs in front of the subject vehicle M in the same lane. Other vehicles m2 to m4 are vehicles running in a lane L2 adjacent to the right side of the lane L1” and via para “0130” regarding showing on a display as shown in figure 8 a target vehicle traveling in same lane ahead of the subject vehicle),
and a display control section configured to display an image of the peripheral vehicle, regarding which information has been acquired by the information acquisition section, on a display section provided inside a cabin of the vehicle (see Mimura figure 8 and paras “0063” and “0097” “a display that displays an image; a recognizer that recognizes objects including other vehicles present in the vicinity of a subject vehicle; a driving controller that generates a target trajectory of the subject vehicle on the basis of states of the objects recognized by the recognizer” and “FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating one example of an image IM1 displayed on the second display 32B…the subject vehicle M runs in a lane L1, and another vehicle m1 is a vehicle running ahead that runs in front of the subject vehicle M in the same lane. Other vehicles m2 to m4 are vehicles running in a lane L2 adjacent to the right side of the lane L1” and via para “0130” regarding showing on a display as shown in figure 8 a target vehicle traveling in same lane ahead of the subject vehicle),
Mimura discloses another subject vehicle outside of the subject vehicle in the adjacent lane (see Mimura at least figure 8 and para “0097”) and to additionally display, on the display section, an image of the vehicle (see at least Mimura fig 8 and para “0104”), But Mimura fails to explicitly teach and information relating to a vehicle requiring caution that is present outside of the subject vehicle lane and has implications for control during the autonomous driving and to additionally display, on the display section, an image of the vehicle requiring caution, by employing a different display mode from that for the image of the peripheral vehicle, in a case in which information relating to the vehicle requiring caution has been acquired by the information acquisition section.
However Kimura teaches information relating to a vehicle requiring caution that is present outside of the subject vehicle lane and has implications for control during the autonomous driving (see Kimura paras “0186” “In addition, there is no need for the display device to limit the projection of the blinking display P only during autonomous driving. The host vehicle M need not be capable of traveling in autonomous driving mode. The display device may project the blinking display P for the squeezing candidate vehicle Na, for the preceding vehicle Nb, and for the white line that the host vehicle has approached, also during manual driving (including driving assistance in which the manual driving by the driver is mainly performed). In addition, even when the host vehicle M is traveling on a monotonous road that requires little driving operation, the blinking display P, if projected, alerts the driver by and, at the same time, prevents the driving awareness from being reduced. In this case, the flowcharts shown in FIGS. 9, 10, and 15 are executed when the host vehicle M is traveling” and via para “0188” “the display control unit 18 projects the second blinking display Pb for alerting the driver to the preceding vehicle.” regarding alerting the driver of the subject vehicle (through a blinker on a display) that a preceding vehicle is trying to merge in the travelling lane of the subject vehicle, in order to be notified by the driver that the autonomous driving will be switched to the driver to drive the vehicle manually in order to act with caution while the preceding vehicle squeeze in front of the subject vehicle),
requiring caution, by employing a different display mode from that for the image of the peripheral vehicle, in a case in which information relating to the vehicle requiring caution has been acquired by the information acquisition section (see Kimura paras “0186” “In addition, there is no need for the display device to limit the projection of the blinking display P only during autonomous driving. The host vehicle M need not be capable of traveling in autonomous driving mode. The display device may project the blinking display P for the squeezing candidate vehicle Na, for the preceding vehicle Nb, and for the white line that the host vehicle has approached, also during manual driving (including driving assistance in which the manual driving by the driver is mainly performed). In addition, even when the host vehicle M is traveling on a monotonous road that requires little driving operation, the blinking display P, if projected, alerts the driver by and, at the same time, prevents the driving awareness from being reduced. In this case, the flowcharts shown in FIGS. 9, 10, and 15 are executed when the host vehicle M is traveling” and via para “0188” “the display control unit 18 projects the second blinking display Pb for alerting the driver to the preceding vehicle.” regarding alerting the driver of the subject vehicle (through a blinker on a display) that a preceding vehicle trying to merge in the travelling lane of the subject vehicle, in order to be notified by the driver that the autonomous driving will be switched to the driver to drive the vehicle manually in order to act with caution while the preceding vehicle squeeze in front of the subject vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mimura for a vehicle control device, vehicle control method and storage medium to “alert the driver of an object ahead of the subject vehicle through a warning on a display” as taught by Kimura (paras. [0177]- [0186]) in order to prevent the driving awareness of the driver from being reduced.
Regarding claim 2, Mimura discloses wherein the display section is a heads-up display configured to display the respective images overlaid on a scene ahead as viewed through a windshield of the vehicle by an occupant in a driver's seat of the vehicle (see Mimura para “0048” “A head-up display (HUD) device may be included in the display device 32 instead of (or in addition to) the first display 32A and the second display 32B. The HUD device is a device causing an image to be visually recognized with being superimposed on a landscape and, as one example, is a device allowing an observer to visually recognize a virtual image by transmitting light including an image to a front windshield or a combiner of the subject vehicle M. The observer, for example, is a driver and may be a vehicle occupant other than the driver.”).
Regarding claim 3, Mimura teaches wherein the display control section displays the image of the object and emphasis an image when another vehicle is influencing the travel trajectory of the vehicle (see at least paras “0013-0014” and “0104”) but Mimura fails to explicitly teach wherein the display control section displays the image of the vehicle requiring caution on the display section with greater emphasis than the image of the peripheral vehicle.
However Kimura teaches wherein the display control section displays the image of the vehicle requiring caution on the display section with greater emphasis than the image of the peripheral vehicle (see Kimura paras “0177” and “0186” “When it is determined that the squeezing candidate vehicle Na has entered the traveling lane R1, the display control unit 18 projects the blinking display Pd below the image of the squeezing candidate vehicle Na on the windshield W within the display outer frame C1 as seen by the driver sees from the driver eye point Ep. Since there is a strong need to alert the driver, the number of blinks of the after-squeezing blinking display Pd may be set larger than the number of blinks Ni of first blinking display Pa before the squeezing. Instead of increasing the number of blinks, the visual stimulus may be strengthened by making the blinking cycle shorter to make it easier for driver to notice the squeezing.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mimura for a vehicle control device, vehicle control method and storage medium to “alert the driver of an object ahead of the subject vehicle through a warning on a display” as taught by Kimura (paras. [0177]- [0186]) in order to prevent the driving awareness of the driver from being reduced.
Regarding claim 4, Mimura teaches wherein the display control section displays the image of the vehicle in a different color from the image of the peripheral vehicle (see Mimura figure 8 regarding showing the peripheral target vehicle “m1” with a different highlight than the vehicle “m2” [i.e. image of the object] and also via para “0104”), but Mimura fails to explicitly teach an object requiring caution.
However Kimura teaches the image of the vehicle requiring caution (see Kimura paras “0177” and “0186” “When it is determined that the squeezing candidate vehicle Na has entered the traveling lane R1, the display control unit 18 projects the blinking display Pd below the image of the squeezing candidate vehicle Na on the windshield W within the display outer frame C1 as seen by the driver sees from the driver eye point Ep. Since there is a strong need to alert the driver, the number of blinks of the after-squeezing blinking display Pd may be set larger than the number of blinks Ni of first blinking display Pa before the squeezing. Instead of increasing the number of blinks, the visual stimulus may be strengthened by making the blinking cycle shorter to make it easier for driver to notice the squeezing.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mimura for a vehicle control device, vehicle control method and storage medium to “alert the driver of an object ahead of the subject vehicle through a warning on a display” as taught by Kimura (paras. [0177]- [0186]) in order to prevent the driving awareness of the driver from being reduced.
Regarding claim 5, Mimura teaches wherein, in a case in which the information acquisition section has acquired information relating to the object requiring caution that is present ahead of the vehicle and a HUD to display images on the windshield in front of the driver or passenger (see at least Mimura paras “0048”, “0063”, “0097” and “0104”) but fails to explicitly teach wherein, in a case in which the information acquisition section has acquired information relating to the vehicle requiring caution that is present ahead of the vehicle, the display control section displays the vehicle requiring caution on the display section as an image simulating a state viewed through a windshield of the vehicle by an occupant in a driver's seat of the vehicle.
However Kimura teaches wherein, in a case in which the information acquisition section has acquired information relating to the vehicle requiring caution that is present ahead of the vehicle, the display control section displays the vehicle requiring caution on the display section as an image simulating a state viewed through a windshield of the vehicle by an occupant in a driver's seat of the vehicle (see Kimura paras “0008-0009” “a display unit configured to display an image on a windshield of a host vehicle; and an electronic control unit configured to recognize other vehicles that are present around the host vehicle; determine whether a squeezing candidate vehicle presents ahead of the host vehicle, based on a recognition result of the other vehicles” and “if it is determined that there is a squeezing candidate vehicle that may squeeze before the host vehicle, the display device projects the first blinking display onto the windshield to alert the driver to the squeezing candidate vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mimura for a vehicle control device, vehicle control method and storage medium to “alert the driver of an object ahead of the subject vehicle through a warning on a display such as a blinker” as taught by Kimura (paras. [0008-0009]) in order to prevent the driving awareness of the driver from being reduced.
Regarding claim 6, Mimura teaches wherein, in a case in which the information acquisition section has acquired information relating to the vehicle , which is present to the rear or to a side of the vehicle, the display control section displays the vehicle and the vehicle on the display section as an image simulating a state viewed from obliquely above and to the rear of the vehicle (see Mimura figure 8 regarding displaying an image simulating the own vehicle from above and to the rear of the own vehicle).
But Mimura fails to teach the vehicle requiring caution.
However Kimura teaches wherein, in a case in which the information acquisition section has acquired information relating to the vehicle requiring caution, which is present to the rear or to a side of the vehicle, the display control section displays the vehicle requiring caution (see Kimura paras “0186” “In addition, there is no need for the display device to limit the projection of the blinking display P only during autonomous driving. The host vehicle M need not be capable of traveling in autonomous driving mode. The display device may project the blinking display P for the squeezing candidate vehicle Na, for the preceding vehicle Nb, and for the white line that the host vehicle has approached, also during manual driving (including driving assistance in which the manual driving by the driver is mainly performed). In addition, even when the host vehicle M is traveling on a monotonous road that requires little driving operation, the blinking display P, if projected, alerts the driver by and, at the same time, prevents the driving awareness from being reduced. In this case, the flowcharts shown in FIGS. 9, 10, and 15 are executed when the host vehicle M is traveling” and via para “0188” “the display control unit 18 projects the second blinking display Pb for alerting the driver to the preceding vehicle.” regarding alerting the driver of the subject vehicle (through a blinker on a display) that a preceding vehicle trying to merge in the travelling lane of the subject vehicle, in order to be notified by the driver that the autonomous driving will be switched to the driver to drive the vehicle manually in order to act with caution while the preceding vehicle squeeze in front of the subject vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mimura for a vehicle control device, vehicle control method and storage medium to “alert the driver of an object ahead of the subject vehicle through a warning on a display” as taught by Kimura (paras. [0177]- [0186]) in order to prevent the driving awareness of the driver from being reduced.
Regarding claim 7, Mimura teaches wherein: the display section is a heads-up display configured to display the respective images overlaid on a scene ahead as viewed through a windshield of the vehicle by an occupant in a driver's seat of the vehicle; a meter display having a larger display region than the heads-up display is provided at an instrument panel of the vehicle (see Mimura paras “0047-0048” “FIG. 2 is a diagram schematically illustrating a view of a vehicle cabin of a subject vehicle M. For example, the first display 32A is disposed near a front face of a driver' seat (for example, a seat that is the closest to a steering wheel) on an instrument panel IP and is disposed at a position at which it can be visually recognized by a vehicle occupant through a gap of the steering wheel or over the steering wheel.” and “The HUD device is a device causing an image to be visually recognized with being superimposed on a landscape and, as one example, is a device allowing an observer to visually recognize a virtual image by transmitting light including an image to a front windshield or a combiner of the subject vehicle M. The observer, for example, is a driver and may be a vehicle occupant other than the driver”)
and the display control section is configured to display the vehicle and the periphery of the vehicle on the meter display as an image simulating a state viewed from obliquely above and to the rear of the vehicle (as shown in figure 8 regarding showing the back of the subject vehicle and the periphery).
Regarding claim 8, Mimura discloses a display control method for implementation by a processor installed in a vehicle configured to enable autonomous driving, the display control method comprising: (see Mimura figure 2 and paras “0013” and “0038” “A vehicle control method according to one aspect of the present invention is a vehicle control method using an in-vehicle computer mounted in a subject vehicle including a display that displays images” and “a display device displays results of recognition of the vicinity of a vehicle when the vehicle performs automated driving (autonomous driving) control”),
attempting to acquire information relating to a peripheral vehicle that is present ahead of the vehicle and in a subject vehicle lane in which the vehicle is currently traveling (see Mimura figure 8 and paras “0063” and “0097” “a display that displays an image; a recognizer that recognizes objects including other vehicles present in the vicinity of a subject vehicle; a driving controller that generates a target trajectory of the subject vehicle on the basis of states of the objects recognized by the recognizer” and “FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating one example of an image IM1 displayed on the second display 32B…the subject vehicle M runs in a lane L1, and another vehicle m1 is a vehicle running ahead that runs in front of the subject vehicle M in the same lane. Other vehicles m2 to m4 are vehicles running in a lane L2 adjacent to the right side of the lane L1” and via para “0130” regarding showing on a display as shown in figure 8 a target vehicle traveling in same lane ahead of the subject vehicle),
displaying an image of the peripheral vehicle, regarding which information has been acquired, on a display section provided inside a cabin of the vehicle (see Mimura figure 8 and paras “0063” and “0097” “a display that displays an image; a recognizer that recognizes objects including other vehicles present in the vicinity of a subject vehicle; a driving controller that generates a target trajectory of the subject vehicle on the basis of states of the objects recognized by the recognizer” and “FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating one example of an image IM1 displayed on the second display 32B…the subject vehicle M runs in a lane L1, and another vehicle m1 is a vehicle running ahead that runs in front of the subject vehicle M in the same lane. Other vehicles m2 to m4 are vehicles running in a lane L2 adjacent to the right side of the lane L1” and via para “0130” regarding showing on a display as shown in figure 8 a target vehicle traveling in same lane ahead of the subject vehicle),
Mimura discloses another subject vehicle outside of the subject vehicle in the adjacent lane (see Mimura at least figure 8 and para “0097”) and additionally displaying, on the display section, an image of the vehicle (see at least Mimura fig 8 and para “0104”), But Mimura fails to explicitly teach information relating to a vehicle requiring caution that is present outside of the subject vehicle lane and has implications for control during the autonomous driving and additionally displaying, on the display section, an image of the vehicle requiring caution, by employing a different display mode from that for the image of the peripheral vehicle, in a case in which information relating to the vehicle requiring caution has been acquired.
However Kimura teaches information relating to a vehicle requiring caution that is present outside of the subject vehicle lane and has implications for control during the autonomous driving (see Kimura paras “0186” “In addition, there is no need for the display device to limit the projection of the blinking display P only during autonomous driving. The host vehicle M need not be capable of traveling in autonomous driving mode. The display device may project the blinking display P for the squeezing candidate vehicle Na, for the preceding vehicle Nb, and for the white line that the host vehicle has approached, also during manual driving (including driving assistance in which the manual driving by the driver is mainly performed). In addition, even when the host vehicle M is traveling on a monotonous road that requires little driving operation, the blinking display P, if projected, alerts the driver by and, at the same time, prevents the driving awareness from being reduced. In this case, the flowcharts shown in FIGS. 9, 10, and 15 are executed when the host vehicle M is traveling” and via para “0188” “the display control unit 18 projects the second blinking display Pb for alerting the driver to the preceding vehicle.” regarding alerting the driver of the subject vehicle (through a blinker on a display) that a preceding vehicle trying to merge in the travelling lane of the subject vehicle, in order to be notified by the driver that the autonomous driving will be switched to the driver to drive the vehicle manually in order to act with caution while the preceding vehicle squeeze in front of the subject vehicle),
requiring caution, by employing a different display mode from that for the image of the peripheral vehicle, in a case in which information relating to the vehicle requiring caution has been acquired (see Kimura paras “0186” “In addition, there is no need for the display device to limit the projection of the blinking display P only during autonomous driving. The host vehicle M need not be capable of traveling in autonomous driving mode. The display device may project the blinking display P for the squeezing candidate vehicle Na, for the preceding vehicle Nb, and for the white line that the host vehicle has approached, also during manual driving (including driving assistance in which the manual driving by the driver is mainly performed). In addition, even when the host vehicle M is traveling on a monotonous road that requires little driving operation, the blinking display P, if projected, alerts the driver by and, at the same time, prevents the driving awareness from being reduced. In this case, the flowcharts shown in FIGS. 9, 10, and 15 are executed when the host vehicle M is traveling” and via para “0188” “the display control unit 18 projects the second blinking display Pb for alerting the driver to the preceding vehicle.” regarding alerting the driver of the subject vehicle (through a blinker on a display) that a preceding vehicle trying to merge in the travelling lane of the subject vehicle, in order to be notified by the driver that the autonomous driving will be switched to the driver to drive the vehicle manually in order to act with caution while the preceding vehicle squeeze in front of the subject vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mimura for a vehicle control device, vehicle control method and storage medium to “alert the driver of an object ahead of the subject vehicle through a warning on a display” as taught by Kimura (paras. [0177]- [0186]) in order to prevent the driving awareness of the driver from being reduced.
Regarding claim 9, Mimura discloses a display control program executable by a processor installed in a vehicle configured to enable autonomous driving, the display control program comprising: (see Mimura figure 2 and paras “0013-0014” and “0038” “A vehicle control method according to one aspect of the present invention is a vehicle control method using an in-vehicle computer mounted in a subject vehicle including a display that displays images” and “a display device displays results of recognition of the vicinity of a vehicle when the vehicle performs automated driving (autonomous driving) control”),
attempting to acquire information relating to a peripheral vehicle that is present ahead of the vehicle and in a subject vehicle lane in which the vehicle is currently traveling (see Mimura figure 8 and paras “0063” and “0097” “a display that displays an image; a recognizer that recognizes objects including other vehicles present in the vicinity of a subject vehicle; a driving controller that generates a target trajectory of the subject vehicle on the basis of states of the objects recognized by the recognizer” and “FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating one example of an image IM1 displayed on the second display 32B…the subject vehicle M runs in a lane L1, and another vehicle m1 is a vehicle running ahead that runs in front of the subject vehicle M in the same lane. Other vehicles m2 to m4 are vehicles running in a lane L2 adjacent to the right side of the lane L1” and via para “0130” regarding showing on a display as shown in figure 8 a target vehicle traveling in same lane ahead of the subject vehicle),
displaying an image of the peripheral vehicle, regarding which information has been acquired, on a display section provided inside a cabin of the vehicle (see Mimura figure 8 and paras “0063” and “0097” “a display that displays an image; a recognizer that recognizes objects including other vehicles present in the vicinity of a subject vehicle; a driving controller that generates a target trajectory of the subject vehicle on the basis of states of the objects recognized by the recognizer” and “FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating one example of an image IM1 displayed on the second display 32B…the subject vehicle M runs in a lane L1, and another vehicle m1 is a vehicle running ahead that runs in front of the subject vehicle M in the same lane. Other vehicles m2 to m4 are vehicles running in a lane L2 adjacent to the right side of the lane L1” and via para “0130” regarding showing on a display as shown in figure 8 a target vehicle traveling in same lane ahead of the subject vehicle),
Mimura discloses another subject vehicle outside of the subject vehicle in the adjacent lane (see Mimura at least figure 8 and para “0097”) and additionally displaying, on the display section, an image of the vehicle (see at least Mimura fig 8 and para “0104”), But Mimura fails to explicitly teach information relating to a vehicle requiring caution that is present outside of the subject vehicle lane and has implications for control during the autonomous driving and additionally displaying, on the display section, an image of the vehicle requiring caution, by employing a different display mode from that for the image of the peripheral vehicle, in a case in which information relating to the vehicle requiring caution has been acquired.
However, Kimura teaches information relating to a vehicle requiring caution that is present outside of the subject vehicle lane and has implications for control during the autonomous driving (see Kimura paras “0186” “In addition, there is no need for the display device to limit the projection of the blinking display P only during autonomous driving. The host vehicle M need not be capable of traveling in autonomous driving mode. The display device may project the blinking display P for the squeezing candidate vehicle Na, for the preceding vehicle Nb, and for the white line that the host vehicle has approached, also during manual driving (including driving assistance in which the manual driving by the driver is mainly performed). In addition, even when the host vehicle M is traveling on a monotonous road that requires little driving operation, the blinking display P, if projected, alerts the driver by and, at the same time, prevents the driving awareness from being reduced. In this case, the flowcharts shown in FIGS. 9, 10, and 15 are executed when the host vehicle M is traveling” and via para “0188” “the display control unit 18 projects the second blinking display Pb for alerting the driver to the preceding vehicle.” regarding alerting the driver of the subject vehicle (through a blinker on a display) that a preceding vehicle trying to merge in the travelling lane of the subject vehicle, in order to be notified by the driver that the autonomous driving will be switched to the driver to drive the vehicle manually in order to act with caution while the preceding vehicle squeeze in front of the subject vehicle),
requiring caution, by employing a different display mode from that for the image of the peripheral vehicle, in a case in which information relating to the vehicle requiring caution has been acquired. (see Kimura paras “0186” “In addition, there is no need for the display device to limit the projection of the blinking display P only during autonomous driving. The host vehicle M need not be capable of traveling in autonomous driving mode. The display device may project the blinking display P for the squeezing candidate vehicle Na, for the preceding vehicle Nb, and for the white line that the host vehicle has approached, also during manual driving (including driving assistance in which the manual driving by the driver is mainly performed). In addition, even when the host vehicle M is traveling on a monotonous road that requires little driving operation, the blinking display P, if projected, alerts the driver by and, at the same time, prevents the driving awareness from being reduced. In this case, the flowcharts shown in FIGS. 9, 10, and 15 are executed when the host vehicle M is traveling” and via para “0188” “the display control unit 18 projects the second blinking display Pb for alerting the driver to the preceding vehicle.” regarding alerting the driver of the subject vehicle (through a blinker on a display) that a preceding vehicle trying to merge in the travelling lane of the subject vehicle, in order to be notified by the driver that the autonomous driving will be switched to the driver to drive the vehicle manually in order to act with caution while the preceding vehicle squeeze in front of the subject vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mimura for a vehicle control device, vehicle control method and storage medium to “alert the driver of an object ahead of the subject vehicle through a warning on a display” as taught by Kimura (paras. [0177]- [0186]) in order to prevent the driving awareness of the driver from being reduced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm 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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights