125DETAILED 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 .
Claim(s) Status
Claims 1-39 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore: 1) the details of simultaneously display a rotational display and a fixed display in different display areas based on the display areas, claimed in claim 26, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 2) wherein the notification control unit is configured to display the surrounding situation image in a simplified manner in a case where the vehicle turns right or left in a direction indicated by an arrow light of an arrow-type traffic light in the intersection, compared with a case where the vehicle turns right or left in the intersection without the arrow-type traffic light, claimed in claim 34. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In particular, claim 38 is presented in a dependent form (depending on claim 37) however it claims an vehicle notification control device in the preamble presented in an independent form which makes it indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant meant to claim an independent claim or a dependent claim. In particular, claim 39 is presented in a dependent form (depending on claim 37) however it claims non-transitory computer readable medium in the preamble presented in an independent form which makes it indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant meant to claim an independent claim or a dependent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, 14-16, 28, 33 & 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Emura (US 20190375430 A1, IDS). 1) Regarding claim 1, Emura discloses a vehicle notification control device (Fig. 1: driving assistance device (HMI) 40) for a vehicle configured to execute automated driving, the vehicle notification control device comprising: an operation identification unit (Fig. 1: behavior information input unit 54) configured to identify a predetermined operation of the vehicle to be executed in an intersection (¶55); and a notification control unit (Fig. 1: image-and-sound output unit 51) configured to cause a notification device (Fig. 1: notification device 2) provided in a vehicle compartment of the vehicle to make a notification (¶¶54, 64; Figs. 5-8), wherein the notification control unit is configured to make a notification related to the predetermined operation (¶¶62-79) and prompting a driver of the vehicle to assist in passing the intersection during automated driving of the vehicle based on the operation identification unit identifying the predetermined operation to be executed in the intersection (¶¶62-79; Figs. 3-8). 2) Regarding claim 2 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 1, wherein the notification control unit is configured to make a monitoring prompting notification prompting the driver to monitor surroundings during automated driving of the vehicle based on the operation identification unit identifying a right or left turn to be executed in the intersection as the predetermined operation (¶65 with reference to Fig. 5, with regard to a message to inquire of the occupant whether the possibility of the collision between first peripheral vehicle). 3) Regarding claim 3 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 2, wherein the operation identification unit is configured to identify a scheduled right or left turn to be executed in the intersection as the predetermined operation (¶¶51, 83-88, 91; Figs. 3-8 & 11), and the notification control unit is configured to make the monitoring prompting notification before the vehicle entering the intersection during automated driving of the vehicle based on the operation identification unit identifying the scheduled right or left turn to be executed in the intersection as the predetermined operation (¶¶51, 83-88, 91; Figs. 3-8 & 11). 4) Regarding claim 4 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 2, wherein the notification control unit is configured to make the monitoring prompting notification during automated driving of the vehicle based on the operation identification unit identifying a right or left turn to be executed in the intersection as the predetermined operation (¶¶51, 83-88, 91; Figs. 3-8 & 11) and a temporary stop of the vehicle being required in the intersection (Fig. 5). 5) Regarding claim 6 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 2, wherein the notification control unit is configured to make the monitoring prompting notification at a timing before the right or left turn being executed in the intersection (¶¶51, 83-88, 91; Figs. 3-8 & 11) and a timing before the vehicle entering a crosswalk after completion of the right or left turn during automated driving of the vehicle based on the operation identification unit identifying the right or left turn to be executed in the intersection as the predetermined operation (¶83). 6) Regarding claim 7 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 2, wherein the notification control unit is configured to continue making the monitoring prompting notification until the vehicle completes the right or left turn in the intersection (¶¶51, 83-88, 91, 95; Figs. 3-8 & 11) and starts straight traveling based on a start of the monitoring prompting notification (since Figs. 3-8 & 11 each illustrate that after the execution of a right or left turn results in the vehicle travelling straight, and ¶95 with reference to Fig. 11c specifically stating that the notification first or second state determination is continued until the left turn behavior is completed, it can be interpreted that the initiated left turn monitoring that would cause notification conditions to be outputted see Fig. 12 continues until the vehicle completes the left turn behavior (the vehicle has started travelling straight after the completion, which reads on the claim). 7) Regarding claim 8 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 1, wherein the notification control unit is configured to make a temporary stop notification indicating to the driver that the vehicle temporarily stops during automated driving of the vehicle based on the operation identification unit identifying a temporary stop to be executed in the intersection as the predetermined operation (¶¶51, 83-88, 91; Figs. 3-8 & 11). 8) Regarding claim 9 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 8, wherein the notification control unit is configured to display a surrounding situation image on an indicator (Fig. 12), the surrounding situation image indicating a surrounding situation of the vehicle (Figs. 11-12), and highlight a stop object (Fig. 12: person icon 154 highlighted by obstacle icon 156) that is a factor of the temporary stop in the surrounding situation image when making the temporary stop notification (Figs. 12a-c). 9) Regarding claim 10 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 8, wherein the notification control unit is configured to display a surrounding situation image (Figs. 12a-c) and a scheduled route image on an indicator (¶¶85-96; Figs. 12a-b displayed arrow indication), the surrounding situation image indicating a surrounding situation of the vehicle (Figs. 12a-c), the scheduled route image indicating a scheduled route of the vehicle in the surrounding situation image (Figs. 12a-b), and decrease visibility of the scheduled route image to be lower when the vehicle is temporarily stopped in the intersection than when the vehicle does not temporarily stop in the intersection (Fig. 12a). 10) Regarding claim 11 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 10, wherein the notification control unit is configured to increase the visibility of the scheduled route image that has been decreased to be higher when the vehicle resumes passing the intersection after the temporary stop than when the vehicle does not temporarily stop in the intersection (Fig. 12b). 11) Regarding claim 12 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 1, wherein the notification control unit is configured to make an obstacle factor notification indicating an obstacle (Figs. 12a-b obstacle icon 156) during automated driving of the vehicle based on the operation identification unit identifying a right or left turn to be executed in the intersection as the predetermined operation (Figs. 12a-c) and the obstacle being present as a factor that obstructs the right or left turn (Figs. 12a-c). 12) Regarding claim 14 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 12, wherein the notification control unit is configured to make the obstacle factor notification based on change of an object to be the obstacle (Figs. 12a-b & Figs. 16a-c). 13) Regarding claim 15 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 12, wherein the notification control unit is configured to display a surrounding situation image on an indicator (Figs. 12a-c), the surrounding situation image indicating a surrounding situation of the vehicle (Figs. 12a-c), display a situation of a lane that the vehicle is to enter by the right or left turn in the surrounding situation image before the right or left turn (Figs. 12a-c), and make the obstacle factor notification indicating the obstacle based on the obstacle that has not been identified in the lane being newly identified in the lane (Figs. 12a-b illustrate the pedestrian not being in the road, each providing a corresponding arrow direction to be travelled by the pedestrian notice the arrow not being darkened, however as the pedestrian enters into the lane as would be required to cross the road via the crosswalk, the arrow indication is darkened to indicate that the pedestrian has entered the lane, which reads on the limitation). 14) Regarding 16 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 1, wherein the notification control unit is configured to display a surrounding situation image (Figs. 12a-c) and a scheduled route image on an indicator for traveling in the intersection (Figs. 12a-b), the surrounding situation image indicating a surrounding situation of the vehicle (Fig. 12a-c), the scheduled route image indicating a scheduled route of the vehicle in the surrounding situation image (Figs. 11-12c). 15) Regarding claim 28 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 16, wherein the vehicle is a host vehicle (Figs. 8a-c), the notification control unit is configured to display the scheduled route image up to a point where route intersection occurs based on occurrence of the route intersection (Figs. 8a-c), the route intersection being an intersection where the scheduled route of the host vehicle intersects with another vehicle (Figs. 8a-c) or a scheduled route of the other vehicle, and display a traveling direction image indicating a traveling direction scheduled by the host vehicle at an exit of the intersection that the host vehicle passes (Figs. 8a-b). 16) Regarding claim 33 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 16, wherein the notification control unit is configured to display the scheduled route image by separately displaying a route image up to a position of a temporary stop of the vehicle and a route image after the temporary stop of the vehicle based on the operation identification unit identifying the temporary stop to be executed in the intersection (according to applicant’s specification, in ¶240, applicant’s Fig. 42 illustrates and example of separately displaying a route image to a temporary stop position based on a need to execute a temporary stop. Emura: Figs. 12a-c involves the host vehicle needed to perform a temporary because of a detected pedestrian similar to applicant’s Fig. 42). 17) Regarding claim 36 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 1, wherein the automated driving is automated driving without a surrounding monitoring obligation (according applicant’s specification, in ¶64, a surrounding monitoring obligation refers to a transfer of the surrounding monitoring obligation from the vehicle system to the driver. Emura discloses, in ¶¶115-116, the concept of simplifying the occupant response by configuring the system to include an active of determining a possibility of the collision with the person/vehicle, so that the occurrence of the collision with the person can be prevented, which can be interpreted as performing automated driving without a surrounding monitoring obligation). 18) Regarding claim 37, Emura discloses a vehicle notification control method (Fig. 10) for a vehicle configured to execute automated driving, the method comprising: identifying a predetermined operation of the vehicle to be executed in an intersection (Figs. 11-12a-b); and making a notification related to the predetermined operation during automated driving of the vehicle based on the identifying the predetermined operation (Figs. 12a-c), the notification prompting a driver of the vehicle to assist in passing the intersection (Figs. 11 (sS158), 12a-c). 19) Regarding claim 38, Emura discloses a vehicle notification control device (Fig. 1: driving assistance device 40) comprising at least one processor (¶52; Fig. 1: controller 41) and at least one memory (¶¶52-53; Fig. 1: storage 42) that stores instructions configured to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out the method according to claim 37 (see analysis of the rejection of claim 37). 20) Regarding claim 39, Emura discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (¶¶52-53; Fig. 1: storage 42) storing a computer program product comprising instructions (¶¶52-53) configured to, when executed by at least one processor (¶52; Fig. 1: controller 41), cause the at least one processor to carry out the method according to claim 37 (see analysis of the rejection of claim 37).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emura in view of Kawai (US 20200117189 A1, IDS). 1) Regarding claim 5 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 2, wherein the notification control unit is configured to make the monitoring prompting notification during automated driving of the vehicle based on the operation identification unit identifying a right or left turn to be executed in the intersection as the predetermined operation (Emura: ¶¶51, 83-88, 91; Figs. 3-8 & 11). As per the limitation a request for a driving operation being temporarily made to the driver. Emura illustrates, in Fig. 5, a provided notification with regard to an indication to stop temporarily, which suggest that the driver is to temporarily stop the vehicle. In the same art, Kawai discloses, in ¶58 with reference to Fig. 6A-F, the concept of requesting a driver to perform manual driving operation when an autonomous operating vehicle is to perform a left or right turn at an intersection.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of requesting a driver to perform manual driving operation when an autonomous operating vehicle is to perform a left or right turn at an intersection, with the motivation to enhance notification and driver awareness features of the system.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emura in view of Deschenes et al. (“Deschenes”, US 20240035845 A1). 1) Regarding claim 13 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 12, wherein the notification control unit is configured to make the obstacle factor notification indicating an oncoming vehicle during automated driving of the vehicle on a road where left-hand traffic is mandatory based on the operation identification unit identifying a right turn to be executed in the intersection as the predetermined operation and the oncoming vehicle being present as the obstacle. Emura discloses, in ¶34-36, that the automatic operation perform right and left, hence the system would in the same manner as disclosed and illustrated as the examples indicate a schedule left turn in Figs. 3, 5-8, 11, therefore in the example of Figs. 19-20 illustrating a scheduled right turn the system would perform obstacle analysis as illustrated in Fig. 19. While, Emura is silent to a condition involving mandatory turning condition. Deschenes discloses, in ¶63, the concept of considering known driving condition involving mandatory turning procedures.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of considering known driving condition involving mandatory turning procedures, with the motivation to enhance notification and obstacle indication features of the system. As per the limitation make the obstacle factor notification indicating an object during automated driving of the vehicle on the road where left-hand traffic is mandatory based on the operation identification unit identifying a left turn to be executed in the intersection as the predetermined operation (Emura: Fig. 12a-c) and the object being present as the obstacle, the object being either a pedestrian (Emura: Fig. 12a-c)or a two-wheeled vehicle (Emura discloses, in ¶153, known consideration of detecting two-wheeled vehicle).
Claim(s) 17, 19 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emura in view of Szybalski et al. (“Szybalski”, US 10093324 B1). 1) Regarding 17 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 16, wherein the vehicle is a host vehicle, the notification control unit is configured to highlight the scheduled route image based on occurrence of a route intersection compared with a case where the route intersection does not occur, the route intersection being an intersection where the scheduled route of the host vehicle intersects with another vehicle or a scheduled route of the other vehicle. Szybalski discloses, in Col. 7, lines 8-21 with reference to Fig. 3, the concept of consistently providing route line and corresponding path as a vehicle transverses a travel route. Szybalski further discloses, in Col. 9, lines 3-20 with reference to Figs. 13-14, 16-17, 19-20, 26-27, the concept of indicating/highlighting the route path by changing the color contrast with provided striped path when the vehicle reaches an intersection. Notice that Fig. 17, illustrates providing indication of the host vehicle 310 possibly intersecting the path of a vehicle 1610.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of indicating/highlighting the route path by changing the color contrast with provided striped path when the vehicle reaches an intersection, with the motivation to enhance to route guidance features of the system. As per the limitation display a portion of the scheduled route image that has modified due to the occurrence of the route intersection, with a different display style than another portion of the scheduled route image that is not modified (Szybalski: Figs. 13-14, 16-17, 19-20, 26-27). 2) Regarding claim 19 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 17, wherein the notification control unit is configured to highlight the other vehicle that is in the route intersection with the host vehicle by changing a display style of the other vehicle based on the scheduled route image and the other vehicle being overlapped or close to each other (Szybalski: Fig. 17 with regard to the different color contrast of vehicle 1610 and the provided tail 1765 provided thereto). 3) Regarding Claim 34 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 16, wherein the notification control unit is configured to display the surrounding situation image in a simplified manner in a case where the vehicle turns right or left in a direction indicated by an arrow light of an arrow-type traffic light in the intersection, compared with a case where the vehicle turns right or left in the intersection without the arrow-type traffic light. Szybalski discloses, in Col. 9, line 59 through Col. 10, line 12 with reference to Figs. 25-26, the concept providing an information icon to inform a driver that the state of a light has not been determined (corresponding to displaying a more complexed turn indication, which can be interpreted as not indicating an arrow-type turning indicator) versus a displayed light cycling indication as displayed in Fig. 26. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept providing an information icon to inform a driver that the state of a light has not been determined versus a displayed light cycling indication, with the motivation to enhance the display features of the system.
Claim(s) 18, 21 & 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emura in view of Szybalski, and further view of Oaki et al. (“Oaki”, EP 2434257 A2)
1) Regarding claim 18 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 17, wherein the notification control unit is configured to display the scheduled route image up to a region of a predetermined distance from an exit of the intersection that the host vehicle passes (Szybalski: Figs. 27 & 29 illustrate left turn guidance and although the left turn route path indication are different each of them end the scheduled left turn path at the approximate same distance which immediately transitions to the normal straight route path (corresponding to an exit of an intersection) indication, which suggest having a predetermined distance travelled on the connected straight route to be continued while transversing the route. Furthermore, Oaki discloses, in ¶¶66-68, the concept of switching a display mode make to a normal route guiding display once a predetermined distance has been transversed. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of switching a display mode make to a normal route guiding display once a predetermined distance has been transversed, with the motivation to enhance the route guidance features of the system), and progressively hide a region of the scheduled route image where the host vehicle has passed (Szybalski illustrates, Fig. 3, that the route path 355 is provided as an line extended in front of the vehicle (as indicated in Figs. 4-40, hence as the vehicle transverses the route extended line will be progressively hidden). 2) Regarding claim 21 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 17, wherein the notification control unit is configured to perform rotational display based on the host vehicle being located outside the intersection, the rotational display being display in which the surrounding situation image transitions with movement of the host vehicle based on a traveling direction of the host vehicle and the host vehicle is positioned at a center of the display, and perform fixed display based on the host vehicle being located inside the intersection, the fixed display being display in which the surrounding situation image is fixedly displayed so as not to transition with movement of the host vehicle. According to applicant’s specification, in ¶201, a rotational display mode is a condition in which the surrounding situation with the movement of the vehicle while the vehicle is centered the display. Szybalski discloses and illustrates, in Figs. 3-4, a display mode that involves displaying the current roadway as a vehicle transverses a route, (corresponding to the surrounding situation image transitions with movement of the host vehicle based on a traveling direction of the host vehicle). Oaki discloses, in ¶39, the concept of displaying a host vehicle in a center position as the vehicle transverses a route. Oaki further discloses, in ¶¶66-68, the concept of switching a display mode make to a normal route guiding display once a predetermined distance has been transversed. Notice that the display for the intersection is provided in a still/fixed mode. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of switching a display mode make to a normal route guiding display once a predetermined distance has been transversed, with the motivation to enhance the route guidance features of the system. 3) Regarding claim 24 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 17, with the same motivation to combine the teachings by Oaki, in the rejection of claims 18 and 21, Emura, Szybalski and Oaki teach wherein the notification control unit is configured to switch between a rotational display and a fixed display (see analysis of the rejection of claims 18 and 21) according to presence or absence of a target moving object based on the host vehicle being located in the intersection (Emura illustrates, in Figs. 20a-c displaying intersection generated scenes according to detected objects), the target moving object being a moving object likely to obstruct the host vehicle passing the intersection (Emura: Figs. 20a-c), the rotational display being display in which the surrounding situation image transitions with movement of the host vehicle based on a traveling direction of the host vehicle (see analysis of the rejection of claim 21) and the host vehicle is positioned at a center of the display (see analysis of the rejection of claim 21), the fixed display being display in which the surrounding situation image is fixedly displayed so as not to transition with movement of the host vehicle (see analysis of the rejection of claim 21). 4) Regarding claim 25 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 24, wherein the notification control unit is configured to perform the rotational display based on the host vehicle being located in the intersection (Szybalski illustrates, in Fig. 15, the route path and corresponding stretch of the roadway being displayed while the vehicle is in an intersection with a detected object 120) and the target moving object being present (Szybalski: Fig. 15), and performs the fixed display based on the host vehicle being located in the intersection and the target moving object being absent (Emura: Figs. 12a-c).
Claim(s) 20 & 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emura in view of Szybalski, and further view of Ota (US 20200307636 A1). 1) Regarding claim 20 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 17, wherein the notification control unit is configured to determine whether to highlight the scheduled route image based on a deviation amount by which the scheduled route modified due to the occurrence of the route intersection deviates from an extension of a traveling lane of the host vehicle, and display an image indicating lighting of a direction indicator of the host vehicle in the surrounding situation image based on the deviation amount being a prescribed value or more. Ota discloses, in ¶¶53, 64 with reference to Fig. 8, the concept of determining to highlight a deviation of a travelled path of a vehicle when the deviation exist within an intersection. Notice that the indication is giving based on horizontal direction amount, which reads on the limitation. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of determining to highlight a deviation of a travelled path of a vehicle when the deviation exist within an intersection, with the motivation to enhance the route guidance features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 35 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 16, wherein the notification control unit is configured to highlight a modified portion of the scheduled route image based on the scheduled route image being modified due to a newly detected obstacle in the intersection after the vehicle entering the intersection. Ota discloses, in ¶¶53, 64 with reference to Fig. 8, the concept of determining to highlight a deviation of a travelled path of a vehicle (corresponding to a modified portion of the schedule route) when the deviation exist within an intersection. Notice that the indication is giving based on horizontal direction amount, which reads on the limitation.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of determining to highlight a deviation of a travelled path of a vehicle when the deviation exist within an intersection, with the motivation to enhance the route guidance features of the system.
Claim(s) 22-23, 30 & 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emura in view of Szybalski, and further view of Oaki and Koda et al. (“Koda”, US 12005934 B2). 1) Regarding claim 22 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 17, with the same motivation to combine the teachings by Oaki, in the rejection of claims 18 and 21, Emura, Szybalski and Oaki teach wherein the notification control unit is configured to switch between a rotational display and a fixed display (see analysis of the rejection of claims 18 and 21). As per the limitation according to an automation level of automated driving of the host vehicle, the rotational display being display in which the surrounding situation image transitions with movement of the host vehicle based on a traveling direction of the host vehicle. Koda discloses, in claim 1, the concept of switching a vehicle’s display modes based on the autonomous level corresponding to each one of the road section transversed on a route. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of switching a vehicle’s display modes based on the autonomous level corresponding to each one of the road section transversed on a route, with the motivation to enhance the route guidance features of the system. As per the limitation the host vehicle is positioned at a center of the display (see analysis of the rejection of claims 18 and 21), the fixed display being display in which the surrounding situation image is fixedly displayed so as not to transition with movement of the host vehicle (see analysis of the rejection of claims 18 and 21). 2) Regarding claim 23 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 22, wherein the notification control unit is configured to perform the rotational display based on the automation level being lower than a prescribed level, and perform the fixed display based on the automation level being equal to or higher than the prescribed level (Koda: Col. 6, lines 16-26). 3) Regarding claim 30 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 16, wherein the notification control unit is configured to display a target moving object image in the surrounding situation image, the target moving image indicating a target moving object that is a moving object likely to obstruct the vehicle passing the intersection (Emura: Figs. 12a-c). As per the limitation switch a display style between the scheduled route image and the target moving object image according to an automation level of automated driving of the vehicle. Koda discloses, in claim 1, the concept of switching a vehicle’s display modes based on the autonomous level corresponding to each one of the road section transversed on a route.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of switching a vehicle’s display modes based on the autonomous level corresponding to each one of the road section transversed on a route, with the motivation to enhance the route guidance features of the system. 4) Regarding claim 32 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 30, wherein the notification control unit is configured to maintain display styles for the scheduled route image (Emura: Figs. 7a-c and 12a-c) and the target moving object image unchanged at time of unscheduled change in the automation level based on the vehicle being located in the intersection (Emura: Figs. 7a-c and 12a-c).
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emura in view of Szybalski, and further view of Kimura et al. (“Kimura”, JP 2004145672 A) and Oaki. 1) Regarding claim 26 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 17, wherein the notification control unit is configured to simultaneously display a rotational display and a fixed display in different display areas based on the display areas configured to display the surrounding situation image being present. Kimura illustrates, in Figs. 7-8, the concept of simultaneously displaying a rotational display and a fixed display in different display areas based on the display areas configured to display the surrounding situation image being present.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of simultaneously displaying a rotational display and a fixed display in different display areas based on the display areas configured to display the surrounding situation image being present, with the motivation to enhance display features of the system. As per the limitation the rotational display being display in which the surrounding situation image transitions with movement of the host vehicle based on a traveling direction of the host vehicle and the host vehicle is positioned at a center of the display (with the same motivation to combine the teachings by Oaki, in the rejection of claims 18 and 21, see analysis of the rejection of claim 21), the fixed display being display in which the surrounding situation image is fixedly displayed so as not to transition with movement of the host vehicle (with the same motivation to combine the teachings by Oaki, in the rejection of claims 18 and 21, see analysis of the rejection of claims 18 and 21).
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emura in view of Szybalski, and further view of Park (KR 20170041417 A). 1) Regarding claim 27 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 17, wherein the vehicle is a host vehicle (Emura: Figs. 12a-c). As per the limitation the notification control unit is configured to superimpose another vehicle image indicating another vehicle on the scheduled route image in the surrounding situation image based on the scheduled route of the host vehicle intersecting with the other vehicle or a scheduled route of the other vehicle. Park discloses, in Figs. 14a-b with corresponding disclosure, the concept of using augmentation features to superimpose another vehicle image detected on a vehicle route.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using augmentation features to superimpose another vehicle image detected on a vehicle route, with the motivation to enhance the route guidance features of the system.
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emura in view of Matsunaga et al. (“Matsunaga”, US 20220011771 A1). 1) Regarding claim 31 the vehicle notification control device according to claim 30, wherein the notification control unit is configured to increase a degree of highlighting for the target moving object image with increase in the automation level, and increase a degree of highlighting for the scheduled route image with decrease in the automation level. Matsunaga discloses, in ¶126 and claim 14, the concept of highlighting moving object based on the level of difficulty of an automated traveling control of a vehicle. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of highlighting moving object based on the level of difficulty of an automated traveling control of a vehicle, with the motivation to enhance the safety features of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 29 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220219683 A1; US 20240161623 A1; US 20190011917 A1, system providing notifications to assist in transversing through an intersection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2684
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685