DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below; claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-18, and 20 have been amended; and claims 9-17 have been withdrawn from further consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 6/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action on the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/21/2024 was filed before the mailing date of the present Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 1-8 and 18 recite a device, therefore claims 1-8 and 18 are a machine, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 19 recites a method, therefore claim 19 is a process, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 20 recites a moving body, therefore claim 20 is a machine, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An information processing device comprising:
circuitry that
superimposes visual information associated with driving assistance at least either within a visual field of a driver, or on a surrounding image indicating surroundings of a moving body and presented to the driver, the visual information being superimposed on a basis of at least any one of a sensing result around the moving body, information acquired from an outside, and information accumulated on the moving body.
These limitations, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as certain mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as in the mind (or on paper). For example, “superimposing visual information…within a visual field of a driver…” encompass a human visually viewing the environment of a vehicle and superimposing that view onto a mental map. Thus, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims of similar scope of claim 1 also recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing device comprising:
circuitry that
superimposes visual information associated with driving assistance at least either within a visual field of a driver, or on a surrounding image indicating surroundings of a moving body and presented to the driver, the visual information being superimposed on a basis of at least any one of a sensing result around the moving body, information acquired from an outside, and information accumulated on the moving body.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for visually viewing the environment of a vehicle and superimposing that view onto a mental map, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP§ 2106.05).
Furthermore, the additional elements of circuitry are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by using a general processor and computer system to perform the process. In particular, the devices recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer visually viewing the environment of a vehicle and superimposing that view onto a mental map amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, claims 2-8 and 18 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (“superimposes…the visual information associated with a roundabout…,” “superimposes…visual information indicating a first exit…,” “visual information is superimposed, within the visual field of the driver, on a road surface…,” “superimposes…the visual information indicating a travel direction…,” “the visual information is superimposed…on a position…,” “superimposes…the visual information indicating an alert…,” “visual information is superimposed…on a position shifted…”). Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 and 18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0168180 to Ichinokawa.
Regarding claim 1, Ichinokawa discloses:
An information processing device comprising:
circuitry (¶ [0050]) that
superimposes visual information associated with driving assistance at least either within a visual field of a driver, or on a surrounding image indicating surroundings of a moving body and presented to the driver, the visual information being superimposed on a basis of at least any one of a sensing result around the moving body, information acquired from an outside, and information accumulated on the moving body (¶¶ [0041], [0045] describing…).
Regarding claim 2, Ichinokawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Ichinokawa further discloses:
wherein the circuitry superimposes, within the visual field of the driver, the visual information associated with driving assistance at a roundabout (¶ [0062] describing the superimpose information being a roundabout).
Regarding claim 3, Ichinokawa discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Ichinokawa further discloses:
wherein the circuitry superimposes, within the visual field of the driver, at least either first visual information that is the visual information indicating a first exit through which the moving body leaves from the roundabout, or second visual information that is the visual information associated with prevention of leaving through a second exit different from the first exit (Figure 7 depicting exit IMe2; ¶¶ [0080], [0081] describing superimposing information relating to an exit from the roundabout).
Regarding claim 4, Ichinokawa discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Ichinokawa further discloses:
wherein the second visual information is superimposed, within the visual field of the driver, on a road surface extending from the second exit to an outside of the roundabout outside an outer circumference of the roundabout (NOTE: This claim is satisfied without the second visual information because the first visual information and the second visual information are claimed in the alternative in claim 3. Therefore, Examiner is not required to address this claim, but will do so for the purpose of compact prosecution; Figure 10 depicting the second exit Ime3 extending to an outside of the roundabout; ¶¶ [0087], [0088] describing superimposing the two exits from the roundabout with one extending beyond the outer circumference).
Regarding claim 5, Ichinokawa discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Ichinokawa further discloses:
wherein the circuitry superimposes, within the visual field of the driver, the visual information indicating a traveling direction of the moving body at the roundabout (¶¶ [0080], [0081] describing the travel direction of the vehicle being displayed).
Regarding claim 6, Ichinokawa discloses all the limitations of claim 5. Ichinokawa further discloses:
wherein the visual information is superimposed, within the visual field of the driver, on a position shifted in the traveling direction from a center of the driver (Figure 7 depicting the superimposed exit shifted from the center visual of the driver; ¶¶ [0080], [0081] describing positioning the exit in the traveling direction of the vehicle and superimposing that information on the HUD).
Regarding claim 18, Ichinokawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Ichinokawa further discloses:
wherein the circuitry superimposes the visual information within the visual field of the driver by controlling a head-up display (¶ [0045] describing the heads-up display that the information is superimposed on).
Claim 19 contains all the limitations of claim 1 (i.e., there are no additional claim limitation beyond those recited in claim 1). Therefore, the supporting rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 19.
Claim 20 contains all the limitations of claim 1, but with the additional elements of a sensing circuit, a communication circuit, and an output circuit (¶ [0050] describing the various circuitry, including sensing circuity, communication circuitry, and output circuitry). Therefore, the supporting rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 20.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichinokawa in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0001993 to Visintainer et al.
Regarding claim 7, Ichinokawa discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Ichinokawa does not expressly disclose wherein, before entrance into the roundabout, the circuitry superimposes, within the visual field of the driver, the visual information indicating an alert against a different moving body approaching the moving body within the roundabout.
Visintainer et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches before entrance into the roundabout, the circuitry superimposes, within the visual field of the driver, the visual information indicating an alert against a different moving body approaching the moving body within the roundabout (Figure 10 depicting the superimposed alert of another vehicle entering the roundabout; ¶¶ [0078] – [0088] describing the different levels of alerts based on varying criteria, such as distance to roundabout, time of entering of host vehicle, time of entering of other vehicles, etc.).
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 Ichinokawa’s invention to incorporate alerting the driver of another vehicle in the roundabout, as taught by Visintainer et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in notifying each driver of the presence of the other vehicles and providing a priority to enter the roundabout (Visintainer et al. at ¶¶ [0005], [0016]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ichinokawa and Visintainer et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 7. Visintainer et al. further discloses:
wherein the visual information is superimposed, within the visual field of the driver, on a position shifted toward the different moving body from a center of the driver (Figure 10 depicting the other vehicle in a position shifted from the center of the driver’s visual toward the upcoming other vehicle entering the roundabout).
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 Ichinokawa’s invention to incorporate alerting the driver of another vehicle in the roundabout, as taught by Visintainer et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in notifying each driver of the presence of the other vehicles and providing a priority to enter the roundabout (Visintainer et al. at ¶¶ [0005], [0016]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0381846 to Chang et al. teaches superimposing visual information within the field of a driver (¶¶ [0116] – [0120];
U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0131818 to Yamaguchi et al. teaches superimposing visual information on a HUD (¶ [0005]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0137060 to Brandin teaches displaying visual information associated with a vehicle entering a roundabout (¶¶ [0074] – [0078]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0185165 to Geelen et al. teaches superimposing visual information about the surrounding of the vehicle on the navigational map display (¶¶ [0014] – [0017]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/JOHN D HOLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights