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, see Remarks, filed 3/16/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa et al. (hereafter Hayakawa) (US PgPub 2020/0339147) and in view of Izumi et al. (hereafter Izumi)(US PgPub 2023/0191911).
Regarding claim 1, Hayakawa discloses a display device for a vehicle (Figure 14, Element 1100 and Paragraph 0166 where the vehicle includes a HUD display) that is provided at a vehicle and that, when a detecting device detects a relative moving body, which is positioned at a periphery of the vehicle, in a predetermined detection range (Figure 14, Elements 6, 7 and Paragraphs 0084 and 0166 where the camera and radar detect objects in proximity to the vehicle), can display a moving image representing the relative moving body (Figure 16, Ca1 and Paragraphs 0172, 0176 and 0177 where the moving double rectangle image surrounds a moving vehicle object) by control by a processor (Figure 14, Element 3), wherein: in a case in which a relative distance of the relative moving body from the vehicle is in a usual range, the usual range being within the predetermined detection range, the processor changes a display condition, which is at least one of a size of or a displayed position of the moving image, in accordance with the relative distance, (Figure 16 and Paragraph 0177 where the size of the image Ca1 is inversely proportional to a distance from the vehicle within a detection range. The closer the detected object, the larger the image becomes and vice versa). Hayakawa does not specifically disclose and in a case in which the relative distance is outside of the usual range, the processor does not change the display condition. Namely, Hayakawa is silent with respect to the functionality of the moving double rectangle image surrounding a moving vehicle object when the moving vehicle object is outside the usual range (detection range). In the same field of endeavor, Izumi discloses a vehicle system with a vehicle display apparatus where the vehicle system includes a surrounding monitoring sensor, including a camera, that detects objects proximate to the vehicle. The surrounding monitoring sensor can detect moving objects and stationary objects in a set detection range. Outside of the detection range, detection of the moving objects and stationary objects does not occur (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the set detection range monitoring and tracking of Izumi to the vehicle system of Hayakawa, thereby only detecting moving objects and changing display conditions within a set detection range, motivation being to conserve system resources and remove clutter on the vehicle display by only changing display sizes for objects within the detection range of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Hayakawa discloses wherein: in a case in which the relative distance is in the usual range, the processor gradually makes the moving image smaller as the relative distance becomes longer, and given that a size of the moving image, of a time when the relative distance becomes a maximum value in a case in which the relative distance is in the usual range, is defined as a minimum dimension, the processor makes the size of the moving image, of a time when the relative distance is outside of the usual range and has become greater than the maximum value, be the minimum dimension (see rejection for claim 1 and Figure 16 and Paragraph 0177 where the size of the image Ca1 is inversely proportional to a distance from the vehicle within a detection range. The closer the detected object, the larger the image becomes and vice versa. Outside of a vehicle detection range, the vehicle processor does not change a display condition and an image size has a dimension of zero. At a maximum detection range, the image will have a maximum dimension for said range. At a minimum detection range, the image will have a maximum dimension for said range. The dimensions for the image change dynamically).
Regarding claim 3, Hayakawa discloses wherein: in a case in which the relative distance is in the
usual range, the processor gradually makes the moving image smaller as the relative distance becomes
longer, and given that a size of the moving image, of a time when the relative distance becomes a
maximum value in a case in which the relative distance is in the usual range, is defined as a minimum
dimension, the processor makes the size of the moving image, of a time when the relative distance is
outside of the usual range and has become greater than the maximum value, be the minimum
dimension (see rejection for claim 1 and Figure 16 and Paragraph 0177 where the size of the image Ca1 is inversely proportional to a distance from the vehicle within a detection range. The closer the detected object, the larger the image becomes and vice versa. Outside of a vehicle detection range, the vehicle processor does not change a display condition and an image size has a dimension of zero. At a maximum detection range, the image will have a maximum dimension for said range. At a minimum detection range, the image will have a maximum dimension for said range. The dimensions for the image change dynamically).
Regarding claim 5, Hayakawa discloses wherein: the display device for a vehicle can display a
vehicle image representing the vehicle, in a case in which the relative distance is in the usual range, the
processor gradually makes a displayed distance, which is a distance between the vehicle image and the
moving image, longer as the relative distance becomes longer, and given that the displayed distance, of
a time when the relative distance becomes a maximum value in a case in which the relative distance is in
the usual range, is defined as a maximum distance, the processor makes the displayed distance, of a
time when the relative distance is outside of the usual range and has become greater than the
maximum value, be the maximum distance (see rejection for claim 1 and Figure 16 and Paragraph 0177 where the size of the vehicle image Ca1 is inversely proportional to a distance from the vehicle within a detection range. The closer the detected object, the larger the image becomes and vice versa. Outside of a vehicle detection range, the vehicle processor does not change a display condition and an image size has a dimension of zero. At a maximum detection range, the image will have a maximum dimension for said range. At a minimum detection range, the image will have a maximum dimension for said range. The dimensions for the image change dynamically. The size of the image relative to the vehicle is indicative of relative distance).
Regarding claim 6, Hayakawa discloses wherein: the display device for a vehicle can display a
vehicle image representing the vehicle, in a case in which the relative distance is in the usual range, the
processor gradually makes a displayed distance, which is a distance between the vehicle image and the
moving image, longer as the relative distance becomes longer, and given that the displayed distance, of
a time when the relative distance becomes a minimum value in a case in which the relative distance is in
the usual range, is defined as a minimum distance, the processor makes the displayed distance, of a
time when the relative distance is outside of the usual range and has become smaller than the minimum
value, be the minimum distance (see rejection for claim 1 and Figure 16 and Paragraph 0177 where the size of the vehicle image Ca1 is inversely proportional to a distance from the vehicle within a detection range. The closer the detected object, the larger the image becomes and vice versa. Outside of a vehicle detection range, the vehicle processor does not change a display condition and an image size has a dimension of zero. At a maximum detection range, the image will have a maximum dimension for said range. At a minimum detection range, the image will have a maximum dimension for said range. The dimensions for the image change dynamically. The size of the image relative to the vehicle is indicative of relative distance).
Regarding claim 8, Hayakawa discloses wherein: the vehicle can execute drive assist control, and
the processor changes a size of the usual range in accordance with a level of the drive assist control
(Figure 7 and Paragraphs 0022 and 0134-0142 where detection and display criteria are changed based
on a level of driver assist of the vehicle. A detection zone is increased in a fully autonomous mode).
Regarding claim 9, Hayakawa discloses wherein the processor expands the usual range as the
level of the drive assist control increases (Figure 7 and Paragraphs 0022 and 0134-0142 where detection and display criteria are changed based on a level of driver assist of the vehicle. A detection zone is
increased in a fully autonomous mode).
Regarding claim 10, Hayakawa discloses wherein the processor makes a maximum value of the
usual range larger as the level of the drive assist control increases (Figure 7 and Paragraphs 0022 and
0134-0142 where detection and display criteria are changed based on a level of driver assist of the
vehicle. A detection zone is increased in a fully autonomous mode).
Method claim 11 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims
1-3, 5-6 and 8-10. Therefore method claim 11 corresponds to apparatus claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-10 and is
rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claim 12, see rejections for claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-10 which disclose all of the claimed
limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS D ALUNKAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS D ALUNKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights