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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 02/18/2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112f rejection has been fully considered and is persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 02/18/2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been fully considered and is unpersuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1, The limitations of claim 1 and 8-9 do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant claim 1 recites “…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… an image of the vehicle requiring caution with greater emphasis than the image of the peripheral vehicle by displaying the image of the vehicle requiring caution in a different color from the image of the peripheral vehicle…” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the above limitations are directed to acquiring information relating to surrounding vehicles, identifying vehicle information requiring caution, and displaying corresponding images with differing emphasis characteristics such as color and display mode. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are directed to evaluating and prioritizing information and presenting the results of that evaluation to a user, which may practically be performed mentally or with the aid of generic computer components. For example, a human driver may observe surrounding vehicles, determine which vehicle warrants greater caution, and mentally prioritize or visually emphasize that vehicle relative to others.
Further, the additional elements, including the processor, display, image display operations, color modifications, and differing display modes, merely implement the abstract idea using generic display and computing technology performing their conventional functions of receiving information, processing information, and presenting visual results. The claimed “greater emphasis,” “different color,” and “different display mode” limitations are directed to the manner in which information is visually conveyed to a user and do not improve the functioning of the autonomous driving system itself or any underlying display technology. Rather, the claim merely improves the presentation of information to a user. Accordingly, the claim as a whole amount to no more than collecting vehicle-related information, analyzing the relative importance of the information, and displaying emphasized warning results using conventional computer-display components. Accordingly, the claims do not alter the fundamental nature of the claimed concept as these elements merely provide a technological environment in which the abstract idea is performed.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in the 2019 PEG regardless of whether a computer is used to perform the steps more efficiently. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea and in addition to displaying the results being used are additional elements as they amount to necessary using generic display and computing technology performing their conventional functions of receiving information, processing information, and presenting visual results.
The same updated analysis based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) applies to the newly added claimed limitations as discussed in the previous office action.
As a result, Step 2A Prong 1 determines if a claim is directed to those grouping and subgroupings along with an explanation of why it is directed to such.
“First, the rejection should identify the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG, laws of nature, or a natural phenomenon) by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explaining why it is considered to be an exception (Step 2A Prong One). There is no requirement for the examiner to provide further support, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), for the conclusion that a claim recites a judicial exception.”
“For abstract ideas, the rejection should explain why a specific limitation(s) recited in the claim falls within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity) or provide a justification for why a specific limitation(s) recited in the claim is being treated as an abstract idea if it does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in accordance with the “tentative abstract idea” procedure in the 2019 PEG.”
In the Non-Final mailed 11/20/2025 examiner performs the analysis and clarifies that “the abstract idea noted in the independent claims…are directed to a “Mental Processes.” Hence, examiner has indicated that these identified limitations are directed 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… an image of the vehicle requiring caution with greater emphasis than the image of the peripheral vehicle by displaying the image of the vehicle requiring caution in a different color from the image of the peripheral vehicle…” and has provided a justification for why these limitations fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (i.e. concepts performed in the human mind). This is sufficient under the guidelines of the 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update as cited above. Also, the claims do not provide any control step to control the commercial vehicle to change lanes or to stay on the same lane if it is not safe to perform a lane change and in addition to the claim limitations only provide a display displaying the surrounding of the vehicle with different colors. Accordingly, it seems reasonable for the examiner to group the abstract idea under “Mental processes.” as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG.
Prong Two:
With respect to Step 2A, prong two, Integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Applicant argues that the claimed limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by an image of the vehicle requiring caution with greater emphasis than the image of the peripheral vehicle by displaying the image of the vehicle requiring caution in a different color from the image of the peripheral vehicle. However, the additional elements merely amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
The recited acts of displaying results, such as data gathering and output, which do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further the claims do not recite any limitation that controls the vehicle itself, alters vehicle operation, or change physical driving behavior. Instead, the claims merely recommend or present route information, leaving the final decision to the driver. Such route observation and lane change recommendation can be performed mentally and does not amount a technological improvement.
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are 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). Claiming issuing signals inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The courts found that “… if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358. The claimed invention does not indicate that specialized computer hardware is necessary to implement the claimed systems, similar to the claims at issue in Alice Corp. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (determining that the hardware recited in the claims was “purely functional and generic,” and did not “offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers”). The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.” Examiner notes Applicant’s citing to Enfish, LLC v Microsoft corp, 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Like the improved systems claimed in Enfish, these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved determination of the priority evacuation area and controlling the vehicle to perform the evacuation plan” The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.” Therefore, Enfish does not apply here. The Court gave examples, which included an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvement to the function of the computer itself; or some other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Such as in Diamond v. Diehr, the claims were found statutory in which the Arrhenius equation is used to improve a process of controlling the operation of a mold in curing rubber parts. Examiner submits that under the current 35 U.S.C. 101 examining practice, the existence of such novel features would still not cure the deficiencies with respect to the abstract idea. See for example: Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750, U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, No. 2010-1544, Decided November 14, 2014, 2014 BL 320546, 772 F.3d 709, Page 1754 last two ¶: “We do not agree with Ultramercial that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete.” The instant claims are different, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Lastly, dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic processor to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
With respect to Step 2B the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
Upon further consideration of the prior art of record, including Song, Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 02/18/2026 with respect to previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1 and 8-9 Applicant argue the cited art of record, Mimura (US 2020/0079379 A1) in view of Kimura (US 2017/0240109 A1), fails to explicitly disclose all of the recited features of the amended claim 1 and 8-9 (see response pages 9-10), specifically “an image of the vehicle requiring caution with greater emphasis than the image of the peripheral vehicle by displaying the image of the vehicle requiring caution in a different color from the image of the peripheral vehicle".
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Mimura teaches “an image of the vehicle requiring caution with greater emphasis than the image of the peripheral vehicle by displaying the image of the vehicle requiring caution in a different color from the image of the peripheral vehicle”, as understood in at least (see Mimura ¶ 0103-0104) “The HMI controller 174 recognizes other vehicles m2 to m4 having influences on the generation of a target trajectory for performing lane change from the lane L1 to the lane L2 as second vehicles on the basis of a result of recognition acquired by the recognizer 130. Then, the HMI controller 174 displays images resembling the second vehicles (second images) with more emphasis than images (third images) resembling third vehicles (other vehicles m4 and m5) other than the first vehicle and the second vehicles. More specifically, the HMI controller 174 displays the first image with more emphasis than the second images and displays the second images with more emphasis than the third images.” and “For example, the HMI controller 174 displays an image area, which is disposed on a left-side face close to the subject vehicle M side, of the other vehicle image resembling each of the other vehicles m2 and m3 with more emphasis than the other area as an image representing a direction in which the lane change is disturbed. Here, the emphasized display includes displaying a highlight image of a predetermined color to be superimposed with predetermined transmittance in association with an other vehicle image” regarding displaying the second vehicle with more emphasis than the other images alert the driver of the second vehicle and to more effectively attract the driver’s attention to potentially hazardous surrounding vehicles thereby allowing the driver to react accordingly.
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 1-2 and 5-9 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 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 1-2 and 5-9 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 a processor 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;
display an image of the peripheral vehicle based on the acquired information, on a display provided inside a cabin of the vehicle,
and to additionally display, on the display, an image of the vehicle requiring caution, an image of the vehicle requiring caution with greater emphasis than the image of the peripheral vehicle by displaying the image of the vehicle requiring caution in a different color from the image of the peripheral vehicle, in a case in which information relating to the vehicle requiring caution has been acquired.
Under Step 1 Claim 1 is a system claim same as claims 2 and 5-7.
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 “limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 1-2 and 5-9 are also abstract for similar reasons.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2; the claims recite the additional elements of “A display control device”, “by displaying the 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 1-2 and 5-7 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 and 5-7 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 1-2 and 5-9 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 1-2 and 5-9 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 a processor configured to (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”),
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),
display an image of the peripheral vehicle, based on the acquired information on a display 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),
an image of the vehicle requiring caution with greater emphasis than the image of the peripheral vehicle by displaying the image of the vehicle requiring caution in a different color from the image of the peripheral vehicle (see Mimura figure 8 and paras “0103-0104” “The HMI controller 174 recognizes other vehicles m2 to m4 having influences on the generation of a target trajectory for performing lane change from the lane L1 to the lane L2 as second vehicles on the basis of a result of recognition acquired by the recognizer 130. Then, the HMI controller 174 displays images resembling the second vehicles (second images) with more emphasis than images (third images) resembling third vehicles (other vehicles m4 and m5) other than the first vehicle and the second vehicles. More specifically, the HMI controller 174 displays the first image with more emphasis than the second images and displays the second images with more emphasis than the third images.” and “For example, the HMI controller 174 displays an image area, which is disposed on a left-side face close to the subject vehicle M side, of the other vehicle image resembling each of the other vehicles m2 and m3 with more emphasis than the other area as an image representing a direction in which the lane change is disturbed. Here, the emphasized display includes displaying a highlight image of a predetermined color to be superimposed with predetermined transmittance in association with an other vehicle image”),
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, 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, 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 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, 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 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 2, Mimura discloses wherein the display 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 5, Mimura teaches wherein, in a case in which the processor 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 processor has acquired information relating to the vehicle requiring caution that is present ahead of the vehicle, the processor displays the vehicle requiring caution on the display 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 processor displays the vehicle requiring caution on the display 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 processor has acquired information relating to the vehicle , which is present to the rear or to a side of the vehicle, the processor displays the vehicle and the vehicle on the display 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 processor has acquired information relating to the vehicle requiring caution, which is present to the rear or to a side of the vehicle, the processor 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 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 processor 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),
an image of the vehicle requiring caution with greater emphasis than the image of the peripheral vehicle by displaying the image of the vehicle requiring caution in a different color from the image of the peripheral vehicle (see Mimura figure 8 and paras “0103-0104” “The HMI controller 174 recognizes other vehicles m2 to m4 having influences on the generation of a target trajectory for performing lane change from the lane L1 to the lane L2 as second vehicles on the basis of a result of recognition acquired by the recognizer 130. Then, the HMI controller 174 displays images resembling the second vehicles (second images) with more emphasis than images (third images) resembling third vehicles (other vehicles m4 and m5) other than the first vehicle and the second vehicles. More specifically, the HMI controller 174 displays the first image with more emphasis than the second images and displays the second images with more emphasis than the third images.” and “For example, the HMI controller 174 displays an image area, which is disposed on a left-side face close to the subject vehicle M side, of the other vehicle image resembling each of the other vehicles m2 and m3 with more emphasis than the other area as an image representing a direction in which the lane change is disturbed. Here, the emphasized display includes displaying a highlight image of a predetermined color to be superimposed with predetermined transmittance in association with an other vehicle image”),
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),
an image of the vehicle requiring caution with greater emphasis than the image of the peripheral vehicle by displaying the image of the vehicle requiring caution in a different color from the image of the peripheral vehicle (see Mimura figure 8 and paras “0103-0104” “The HMI controller 174 recognizes other vehicles m2 to m4 having influences on the generation of a target trajectory for performing lane change from the lane L1 to the lane L2 as second vehicles on the basis of a result of recognition acquired by the recognizer 130. Then, the HMI controller 174 displays images resembling the second vehicles (second images) with more emphasis than images (third images) resembling third vehicles (other vehicles m4 and m5) other than the first vehicle and the second vehicles. More specifically, the HMI controller 174 displays the first image with more emphasis than the second images and displays the second images with more emphasis than the third images.” and “For example, the HMI controller 174 displays an image area, which is disposed on a left-side face close to the subject vehicle M side, of the other vehicle image resembling each of the other vehicles m2 and m3 with more emphasis than the other area as an image representing a direction in which the lane change is disturbed. Here, the emphasized display includes displaying a highlight image of a predetermined color to be superimposed with predetermined transmittance in association with an other vehicle image”),
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, 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, 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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABDELLATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights