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 Amendment / Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 7310851B2 (“JP-851”) (all citations to English language machine translation included with previous Office Action) in view of Chaudhri (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0061837), and further in view of Morita (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0309803 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
JP-851 teaches: a vehicle display control device (para. 14, vehicle display device) comprising: a processor (e.g. paras. 31, 33, processors); and
a display section that is provided at a vehicle (JP-851, see e.g. para. 53, which teaches more than one display section, including a meter display 120 installed in front of the driver’s seat; CID 130 is a sub-display unit provided in the central region in the vehicle width direction in front of the driver) capable of executing driving assistance control (JP-851, paras. 31-32, callable of partial automatic driving control, or “advanced driving assistance”), and that is
configured to display a vehicle image representing the vehicle (JP-851, e.g. para. 51, “For example, images of the…own vehicle 10, and other vehicle 20 are used as the image content”. The “own vehicle 10” is an image of the vehicle. This is also shown in Drawings 3-7, as item 10), the processor being configured to:
determine whether or not a switching condition for switching the driving assistance control from a non-actuated state to an actuated state has been satisfied (the examiner is interpreting “actuated” state to be a state related to automated driving/driving assistance control. Accordingly, see e.g. paras. 35-41, 47-49 for conditions related to automatic/automated driving), and
when it has been determined that the switching condition has been satisfied, control the display section so as to display the vehicle image while changing a display mode of the vehicle image (JP-851, e.g. para. 109, the display mode switches based on level of automatic driving (e.g. levels 1, 2, 3 or higher). See also paras. 35-41, 47-49,64 for more description on levels of automated driving. In terms of displaying the vehicle image while changing display mode, see paras. 70-74 and Figs, 2(b), 3(b) and 4(b) as examples of a display mode change to automated/automatic driving, a display mode change, and the vehicle image 10 is displayed while changing mode from normal or manual driving, to automated/automatic),
wherein the vehicle image is an image representing the vehicle when the vehicle is viewed from a predetermined virtual viewpoint (JP-851, para. 69, during normal, non-automated driving, the vehicle 10 can be displayed via plan view or birds-eye view, either one is a predetermined virtual viewpoint), and
wherein when the switching condition has been satisfied, the processor is configured to control the display section such that, accompanying passage of time (Chaudhri reference, paras. 101-02, image transitions over time is known),
the vehicle image is changed from an image when the virtual viewpoint is positioned at a first viewpoint that is further rearward than the vehicle (JP-851, one non-limiting example of viewpoint further rearward is [0071] and Fig. 3(b), which shows the rear area is expanded to as to grasp the following vehicle 22 as it approaches the own vehicle 10),
to an image when the virtual viewpoint is positioned at a second viewpoint that is positioned directly above a center portion, in a front-rear direction, of the vehicle (JP-851, this is taught by the instant reference by description of a “bird’s eye view” (a view from above) per para. 69, 112, 128.
Alternatively, see Morita reference, Figs. 7A-7C: 47 look-down image. The “look-down image” of Morita is another teaching of a viewpoint positioned directly above a center portion, in a front-rear direction),
the second viewpoint having a field of view angle that is the same field of view angle of the first viewpoint (Morita, paras. 75-76, view angles can be the same from different viewpoints).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have modified the applied references, in view of same, to have included the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
That is, to have combined and modified the applied references, in view of same, such to have included the above, where the display section/vehicle image is changed, as claimed, in response to a switching condition, all of which taught by JP-851, to the different display views, per JP-851 with or without Morita, and to have same field of view angles, per Morita, is obvious and predictable over the prior art, and also would, alternatively, have been a design choice for one of ordinary skill. Applicant’s specification as filed does not describe criticality to a specific viewpoint. Likewise, additional motivation would be to provide a user/driver of a vehicle with the most relevant information in a driver assistance display program, based on driving conditions. The bird’s eye or “look-down” image as Morita refers to it as, would be useful in parking situations, as in Morita (see Figs. 7A-7C), or in a scenario whereby the view from that angle would be beneficial.
The prior art included each element recited in claim 1, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described and mapped above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the vehicle display control device according to claim 1, wherein, when the switching condition has been satisfied, the processor is configured to control the display section so as to display a notification image indicating that the driving assistance control is in the actuated state, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
JP-851 teaches that displaying notification images is known (e.g. Fig. 9: M, paras. 191-92). Modifying the applied references, such to include a notification mark when driving assistance control is actuated (i.e. levels 1-3 or higher), triggered by various vehicle or user inputs (e.g. paras. 32, 56, 63-68), and motivated such that a user/driver is notified of changes in vehicle driving assistance, is taught, suggested and motivated by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the vehicle display control device according to claim 1, wherein, when the switching condition has been satisfied, the processor is configured to control the display section such that the vehicle image gradually becomes smaller accompanying passage of time, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Chaudhri teaches that it is known to shrink/reduce the size of objects during or to create a graphically animated transition (paras, 101-02). Modifying the applied references, to include the animated transition of gradually shrinking graphical objects to indicate transitions, such as display mode transitions of JP-851, and the object being the vehicle image, per JP-851, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have also been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill. Applicant’s specification does not describe any criticality to the size of the vehicle image in a gradual change over time, to its claimed inventive concept.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the vehicle display control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to control the display section such that the display mode of the vehicle image is changed continuously, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
While driving, the system can continuously receive “user operations related to starting and stopping each level of the automatic driving function.” (para. 56). See also para. 68 for non-limiting examples of conditions for enabling automated driving level 3, for example. The display mode is also switched according to, among other things, the automated driving level (see paras. 109-23, for non-limiting examples). This teaches a display mode being changed continuously, i.e. as a driver is operating the vehicle continuously, and driving conditions/operations change continuously, automated driving levels change continuously, and, thus, display mode changes continuously. This is all taught by JP-851,
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6:
JP-851 teaches: the vehicle display control device according to claim 1, wherein, when it has been determined that the switching condition has been satisfied, the processor is configured to control the display section so as to display the vehicle image at a predetermined position on the display section (e.g. para. 69, the own vehicle image 10 is displayed as a birds-eye view in traveling direction during normal driving. This is a predetermined position based on driving and camera view. Another example: Fig. 4B. Another example: para. 77-78. Another example: paras. 80-83),
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to have control over display properties for driving assistance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20160311323A1 A vehicle display apparatus and a method for controlling the same are disclosed.
* * * * *
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
Sarah Lhymn
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights