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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a lane change to the goal position…after lane change from the first lane” should recite “the lane change to the goal position…after the lane change from the first lane”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “according to claims 1” should recite “according to claim[[s]] 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a lane change to the goal position” should recite “the lane change to the goal position”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recite the limitation the third confirmation display depicting that a lane change to the goal position is possible after lane change from the first lane; the closest references in the specification appears to include [0025]: line-shaped graphic indicates the goal position after the lane change and [0065]: third confirmation display P3 depicts that the lane change to the goal position after the lane change is possible.. A determination as to whether the lane change to the goal position is possible or not is made by the autonomous driving control section 54, [0066]: before the vehicle 12 changes lane, the first confirmation display P1, second confirmation display P2 and third confirmation display P3 are displayed in the first display unit 24, and [0100]: although environment information of the vehicle 12, determination results as to whether goal positions after lane changes are available, which does not sufficiently describe the limitation display depicting a lane change to the goal position is possible after lane change from the first lane. The specification does not appear to provide support for limitation as “a lane change to the goal position” includes an interpretation that could be a different lane change than “lane change from the first lane”. Claims 13 and 14 recite similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale. Claim 4 recites a similar limitation “wherein the processor is configured to, after displaying the first confirmation display, display the second confirmation display at the display section based on a determination result when acquiring the determination result that a lane change to the goal position is possible by a determination based on the vicinity information after lane change from the first lane” and is rejected under the same rationale. Dependent claims are rejected as being dependent upon and failing to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1.
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) 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recite the limitation the third confirmation display depicting that a lane change to the goal position is possible after lane change from the first lane; however, the metes and bounds of the limitation appears to be unclear to whether “a lane change to the goal position” is the same or different lane change than “lane change from the first lane”. The closest reference in the specification includes [0065]: In Fig. 8, the third confirmation display P3 of the vehicle 12 is displayed by the image generation section 56. The third confirmation display P3 depicts that the lane change to the goal position after the lane change is possible. Claims 13 and 14 recite similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale. Claim 4 recites a similar limitation “wherein the processor is configured to, after displaying the first confirmation display, display the second confirmation display at the display section based on a determination result when acquiring the determination result that a lane change to the goal position is possible by a determination based on the vicinity information after lane change from the first lane” and is rejected under the same rationale. Dependent claims are rejected as being dependent upon and failing to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 10 refer to “the lane change”, “a lane change”, “after lane change from the first lane”, or “the lane change to the second lane”; however, it is unclear to which lane change is being referred or if a different lane change is being introduced in light of the independent claim in light of the independent claim 1 reciting “a lane change to the goal position is possible after lane change from the first lane”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12168437. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar subject matter with only minor variations.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See MPEP 2106.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1, 13, 14 are directed to a device, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim(s) 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below) and will be used as a representative claims for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
a display section provided in a cabin of a vehicle;
a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to:
display a lane display and at least one of a first confirmation display, a second confirmation display, and a third confirmation display, at the display section, the lane display corresponding to a first lane in which the vehicle is running and a second lane that is distinct from the first lane, the first confirmation display depicting a start of acquisition of vicinity information including a condition of the second lane, the second confirmation display depicting a goal position of the vehicle after lane change from the first lane, and the third confirmation display depicting that a lane change to the goal position is possible after lane change from the first lane.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the limitation(s) in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing and depicting a first and second lanes; identifying and depicting a condition such as other vehicles, obstacles, road surface, line markings, or a speed limit in the first and second lanes within an area; and depicting an available target position for the vehicle to reach for a potential successful and safe lane change. For instance, a person could observe and depict the surroundings, determine and depict an exit or turning point ahead in an adjacent lane, and determine and depict an available lane change location before reaching the point.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106, 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 limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract idea):
Claim 1 recites:
a display section provided in a cabin of a vehicle;
a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to:
display a lane display and at least one of a first confirmation display, a second confirmation display, and a third confirmation display, at the display section, the lane display corresponding to a first lane in which the vehicle is running and a second lane that is distinct from the first lane, the first confirmation display depicting a start of acquisition of vicinity information including a condition of the second lane, the second confirmation display depicting a goal position of the vehicle after lane change from the first lane, and the third confirmation display depicting that a lane change to the goal position is possible after lane change from the first lane.
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.
Regarding the additional limitations, the examiner submits that these limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. The additional limitation steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data, transmitting signals), and amounts to mere data gathering, and storing and transmitting do not add a meaningful limitation to the process (MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754), which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, outputting results at a display section can be further interpreted as an insignificant post-solution activity. There is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, 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 drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. Accordingly additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract 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 MPEP 2106, representative independent claim 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 elements amount to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations do not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer and generic computer components. Also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering and displaying, which is are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer components. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Moreover, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claim. For purposes of example only, incorporating “a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to: control the vehicle to drive at least partially autonomously;” in the independent claims 1, 13, 14 would appear to overcome the instant 35 USC 101 rejection.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-14 is/are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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) 1-7, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200079379 (“Mimura”) in view of US 20210146943 (“Oniwa”) and US 20140297181 (“Kondo”).
As per claim(s) 1, 13, 14, Mimura discloses a display device for a vehicle, comprising:
a display section provided in a cabin of a vehicle (see at least [0046]: display device 32, for example, includes a first display 32A and a second display 32B, [0047]: Fig. 2 is a diagram schematically illustrating a view of a vehicle cabin of a subject vehicle M);
a memory (see at least [0058]: automated driving control device 100, for example, includes a first controller 120, a second controller 160, a third controller 170, and a storage 180); and
a processor coupled to the memory (see at least [0058]: automated driving control device 100, for example, includes a first controller 120, a second controller 160, a third controller 170, and a storage 180), wherein the processor is configured to:
display a lane display and at least one of a first confirmation display, a second confirmation display, and a third confirmation display, at the display section (see at least [0097]: FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating one example of an image IM1 displayed on the second display 32B in the state of the vicinity of the subject vehicle illustrated in FIG. 7),
the lane display corresponding to a first lane in which the vehicle is running and a second lane that is distinct from the first lane (see at least [0047]: subject vehicle M, [0097]: FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating one example of an image IM1 displayed on the second display 32B in the state of the vicinity of the subject vehicle illustrated in FIG. 7),
the first confirmation display (see at least [0106]: FIG. 9 is a diagram illustrating a state of the vicinity of a subject vehicle M at a time t1 in the first situation together with an image generated by the HMI controller 174);
the second confirmation display depicting a goal position of the vehicle after lane change from the first lane (see at least [0101]: HMI controller 174 may display an object image representing that the subject vehicle M is following the lock-on vehicle (hereinafter referred to as a lock-on-representing image LO) at a position associated with the lock-on vehicle (for example, near the lock-on vehicle), [0107]: FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating one example of an image IM3 displayed on the second display 32B in the state of the subject vehicle M…determines whether or not a lane change can be performed on the basis of relative positions and relative speeds between the other vehicles m3 and m4 and the subject vehicle M);
the third confirmation display (see at least [0111]: FIG. 13 is a diagram illustrating a state of the vicinity of a subject vehicle M at a time t3 in the first situation together with an image generated by the HMI controller 174. FIG. 14 is a diagram illustrating one example of an image IM4 displayed on the second display 32B in the state of the subject vehicle M illustrated in FIG. 13).
Mimura does not explicitly disclose the first confirmation display depicting a start of acquisition of vicinity information including a condition of the second lane.
However, Oniwa teaches the first confirmation display depicting a start of acquisition of vicinity information including a condition of the second lane (see at least [0180]: HMI controller 120 causes, for example, an image 604 showing a direction in which the host vehicle M changes lanes to be displayed in a surroundings detection information display area 600-4 of the third screen IM3-4, in addition to content displayed in the surroundings detection information display area 600-3, [0208]: Fig. 22…HMI controller 120 causes a surroundings detection image 610A indicating that the driving assistance at the third level is being executed to be displayed in a surroundings detection information display area 600-7…surroundings detection image 610 is an image showing that the surroundings of the host vehicle M are being monitored… surroundings detection image 610 is, for example, an animation (moving image) in which ripples spread from a center of the host vehicle M to the outside).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Mimura by incorporating the teachings of Oniwa with a reasonable expectation of success in order for the occupant to not be obligated to monitor the surroundings and to show that the surroundings of the host vehicle are being monitored for user convenience.
Mimura does not explicitly disclose the third confirmation display depicting that a lane change to the goal position is possible after lane change from the first lane.
However, Kondo teaches the third confirmation display depicting that a lane change to the goal position is possible after lane change point from the first lane (see at least [0047]: FIG. 4B and FIG. 4C, in the pre-start state and post-start state of the lane change state, [0068]: Fig. 5B, [0069]: When it is determined that the vehicle C is in the post-start state, with the use of the function of the display control unit 21e, the control unit 20 sets the front end point FE and the rear end point BE (S170, FIG. 4C) as in the case of the pre-start state (S150), [0070]: Fig. 5C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Mimura by incorporating the teachings of Kondo with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide convenient lane guidance.
As per claim(s) 2, Mimura discloses wherein the processor is configured to display the at least one of the first confirmation display, the second confirmation display, and the third confirmation display, at the display section, regardless of whether or not another vehicle that is distinct from the vehicle is present in the second lane (see at least [0097]: FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating one example of an image IM1 displayed on the second display 32B in the state of the vicinity of the subject vehicle illustrated in FIG. 7).
As per claim(s) 3, Mimura discloses wherein the processor is configured to, after displaying the first confirmation display, display the second confirmation display at the display section (see at least [0106]: FIG. 9 is a diagram illustrating a state of the vicinity of a subject vehicle M at a time t1 in the first situation together with an image generated by the HMI controller 174),
the second confirmation display depicting a goal position of the vehicle after the lane change (see at least [0101]: HMI controller 174 may display an object image representing that the subject vehicle M is following the lock-on vehicle (hereinafter referred to as a lock-on-representing image LO) at a position associated with the lock-on vehicle (for example, near the lock-on vehicle), [0107]: FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating a state of the vicinity of a subject vehicle M at a time t2 in the first situation together with an image generated by the HMI controller 174. FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating one example of an image IM3 displayed on the second display 32B in the state of the subject vehicle M illustrated in FIG. 11).
Mimura does not explicitly disclose the first confirmation display depicting a start of acquisition of vicinity information including a condition of the second lane.
However, Oniwa teaches the first confirmation display depicting a start of acquisition of vicinity information including a condition of the second lane (see at least [0180]: HMI controller 120 causes, for example, an image 604 showing a direction in which the host vehicle M changes lanes to be displayed in a surroundings detection information display area 600-4 of the third screen IM3-4, in addition to content displayed in the surroundings detection information display area 600-3, [0208]: Fig. 22…HMI controller 120 causes a surroundings detection image 610A indicating that the driving assistance at the third level is being executed to be displayed in a surroundings detection information display area 600-7…surroundings detection image 610 is an image showing that the surroundings of the host vehicle M are being monitored… surroundings detection image 610 is, for example, an animation (moving image) in which ripples spread from a center of the host vehicle M to the outside).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Mimura by incorporating the teachings of Oniwa with a reasonable expectation of success in order for the occupant to not be obligated to monitor the surroundings and to show that the surroundings of the host vehicle are being monitored for user convenience.
As per claim(s) 4, Mimura discloses wherein the processor is configured to, after displaying the first confirmation display, display the second confirmation display at the display section based on a determination result when acquiring the determination result that a lane change to the goal position is possible by a determination based on the vicinity information after lane change from the first lane (see at least abstract: a driving controller that generates a target trajectory of a subject vehicle on the basis of states of objects recognized…a display controller that causes to display images resembling the other vehicles recognized as the objects [0101]: HMI controller 174 may display an object image representing that the subject vehicle M is following the lock-on vehicle (hereinafter referred to as a lock-on-representing image LO) at a position associated with the lock-on vehicle (for example, near the lock-on vehicle), [0106]: FIG. 9 is a diagram illustrating a state of the vicinity of a subject vehicle M at a time t1 in the first situation together with an image generated by the HMI controller 174, [0107]: FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating a state of the vicinity of a subject vehicle M at a time t2 in the first situation together with an image generated by the HMI controller 174. FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating one example of an image IM3 displayed on the second display 32B in the state of the subject vehicle M illustrated in FIG. 11…determines whether or not a lane change can be performed on the basis of relative positions and relative speeds between the other vehicles m3 and m4 and the subject vehicle M).
Mimura does not explicitly disclose the first confirmation display depicting a start of acquisition of vicinity information including a condition of the second lane.
However, Oniwa teaches the first confirmation display depicting a start of acquisition of vicinity information including a condition of the second lane (see at least [0180]: HMI controller 120 causes, for example, an image 604 showing a direction in which the host vehicle M changes lanes to be displayed in a surroundings detection information display area 600-4 of the third screen IM3-4, in addition to content displayed in the surroundings detection information display area 600-3, [0208]: Fig. 22…HMI controller 120 causes a surroundings detection image 610A indicating that the driving assistance at the third level is being executed to be displayed in a surroundings detection information display area 600-7…surroundings detection image 610 is an image showing that the surroundings of the host vehicle M are being monitored… surroundings detection image 610 is, for example, an animation (moving image) in which ripples spread from a center of the host vehicle M to the outside).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Mimura by incorporating the teachings of Oniwa with a reasonable expectation of success in order for the occupant to not be obligated to monitor the surroundings and to show that the surroundings of the host vehicle are being monitored for user convenience.
As per claim(s) 5, Mimura discloses wherein the processor is configured to display another vehicle display superposed with the lane display at the display section, the other vehicle display corresponding to another vehicle that is distinct from the vehicle in the second lane, and the second confirmation display being displayed at a position that does not overlap with a front side or a rear side of the other vehicle display (see at least [0101]: HMI controller 174 may display an object image representing that the subject vehicle M is following the lock-on vehicle (hereinafter referred to as a lock-on-representing image LO) at a position associated with the lock-on vehicle (for example, near the lock-on vehicle), [0107]: FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating one example of an image IM3 displayed on the second display 32B in the state of the subject vehicle M).
As per claim(s) 6, Mimura discloses wherein the processor is configured to, after displaying the second confirmation display, display the third confirmation display at the display section (see at least [0107]: determines whether or not a lane change can be performed on the basis of relative positions and relative speeds between the other vehicles m3 and m4 and the subject vehicle M, [0111]: FIG. 13 is a diagram illustrating a state of the vicinity of a subject vehicle M at a time t3 in the first situation together with an image generated by the HMI controller 174. FIG. 14 is a diagram illustrating one example of an image IM4 displayed on the second display 32B in the state of the subject vehicle M illustrated in FIG. 13).
Mimura does not explicitly disclose the third confirmation display depicting that a lane change to the goal position is possible after lane change from the first lane.
However, Kondo teaches the third confirmation display depicting that a lane change to the goal position is possible after lane change from the first lane (see at least [0047]: FIG. 4B and FIG. 4C, in the pre-start state and post-start state of the lane change state, [0068]: Fig. 5B, [0069]: When it is determined that the vehicle C is in the post-start state, with the use of the function of the display control unit 21e, the control unit 20 sets the front end point FE and the rear end point BE (S170, FIG. 4C) as in the case of the pre-start state (S150), [0070]: Fig. 5C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Mimura by incorporating the teachings of Kondo with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide convenient lane guidance.
As per claim(s) 7, Mimura discloses wherein the processor is configured to, after displaying the second confirmation display, acquire the vicinity information including the condition of the second lane (see at least [0040]: an object recognizing device 16, [0107]: determines whether or not a lane change can be performed on the basis of relative positions and relative speeds between the other vehicles m3 and m4 and the subject vehicle M, [0108]: HMI controller 174 displays an image resembling a vehicle m3 that is a following target vehicle after the lane change with more emphasis than the other vehicles m1, m2, m4, and m5 as a first image), and
display the third confirmation display at the display section based on a determination result that a lane change to the goal position was possible based on the vicinity information (see at least [0107]: determines whether or not a lane change can be performed on the basis of relative positions and relative speeds between the other vehicles m3 and m4 and the subject vehicle M, and it is determined that a lane change can be performed, and the lane change is started, [0111]: FIG. 13 is a diagram illustrating a state of the vicinity of a subject vehicle M at a time t3 in the first situation together with an image generated by the HMI controller 174. FIG. 14 is a diagram illustrating one example of an image IM4 displayed on the second display 32B in the state of the subject vehicle M illustrated in FIG. 13. The examples illustrated in FIGS. 13 and 14 illustrate a state in which the subject vehicle M has completed a lane change from a lane L1 to a lane L2.).
Mimura does not explicitly disclose display the third confirmation display at the display section based on a determination result when acquiring the determination result that a lane change to the goal position was possible by a determination based on the vicinity information.
However, Kondo teaches display the third confirmation display at the display section based on a determination result when acquiring the determination result that a lane change to the goal position was possible by a determination based on the vicinity information (see at least [0029]: object data indicate objects present on the roads or around the roads, [0030]: camera 44 is an image sensor that captures a front image ahead of the vehicle C, [0047]: FIG. 4B and FIG. 4C, in the pre-start state and post-start state of the lane change state, [0061]: control unit 20 identifies the image of a recommended lane in which the vehicle C should travel in the front image (S110), [0069]: When it is determined that the vehicle C is in the post-start state, with the use of the function of the display control unit 21e, the control unit 20 sets the front end point FE and the rear end point BE (S170, FIG. 4C) as in the case of the pre-start state (S150), [0072]: control unit 20 may determine whether the vehicle C is in the lane change state on the basis of determination elements, such as a state of the driver, an operation state of the vehicle C, a driving operation state of the vehicle C and a state of a surrounding environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Mimura by incorporating the teachings of Kondo with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide improved convenient lane guidance.
As per claim(s) 11, Mimura discloses wherein the display section is at least one of:
an instrument display of an instrument display apparatus provided at an instrument pane to a vehicle front of a driver seat, or a projection screen at a vehicle upper side of the instrument display, the projection screen being projected onto by a head-up display device (see at least [0046]: display device 32, for example, includes a first display 32A and a second display 32B, [0047]: Fig. 2 is a diagram schematically illustrating a view of a vehicle cabin of a subject vehicle M, [0048]: head-up display (HUD) device may be included in the display device 32 instead of (or in addition to) the first display 32A and the second display 32B).
As per claim(s) 12, Mimura discloses a lane change representing image moving towards the second lane (see at least [0099]: lane-change-representing image) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first confirmation display is a display in which a convex shape toward the second lane is viewed as moving toward the second lane from the first lane.
However, Oniwa teaches wherein the first confirmation display is a display in which a convex shape toward the second lane is viewed as moving toward the second lane from the first lane (see at least [0180]: HMI controller 120 causes, for example, an image 604 showing a direction in which the host vehicle M changes lanes to be displayed in a surroundings detection information display area 600-4 of the third screen IM3-4, in addition to content displayed in the surroundings detection information display area 600-3, [0208]: Fig. 22…HMI controller 120 causes a surroundings detection image 610A indicating that the driving assistance at the third level is being executed to be displayed in a surroundings detection information display area 600-7…surroundings detection image 610 is an image showing that the surroundings of the host vehicle M are being monitored… surroundings detection image 610 is, for example, an animation (moving image) in which ripples spread from a center of the host vehicle M to the outside).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Mimura by incorporating the teachings of Oniwa with a reasonable expectation of success in order show that the surroundings of the host vehicle are being monitored for user convenience.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura in view of Oniwa and Kondo, and further in view of US 20170003134 (“Kim”).
As per claim(s) 8, Mimura discloses wherein each of the second confirmation display has a visual shape (see at least [0107]: determines whether or not a lane change can be performed on the basis of relative positions and relative speeds between the other vehicles m3 and m4 and the subject vehicle M, [0108]: HMI controller 174 displays an image resembling a vehicle m3 that is a following target vehicle after the lane change with more emphasis than the other vehicles m1, m2, m4, and m5 as a first image) but does not explicitly disclose the third confirmation display has a different visual shape.
However, Kondo teaches the third confirmation display has a different visual shape (see at least [0029]: object data indicate objects present on the roads or around the roads, [0030]: camera 44 is an image sensor that captures a front image ahead of the vehicle C, [0047]: FIG. 4B and FIG. 4C, in the pre-start state and post-start state of the lane change state, [0061]: control unit 20 identifies the image of a recommended lane in which the vehicle C should travel in the front image (S110), [0069]: When it is determined that the vehicle C is in the post-start state, with the use of the function of the display control unit 21e, the control unit 20 sets the front end point FE and the rear end point BE (S170, FIG. 4C) as in the case of the pre-start state (S150), [0072]: control unit 20 may determine whether the vehicle C is in the lane change state on the basis of determination elements, such as a state of the driver, an operation state of the vehicle C, a driving operation state of the vehicle C and a state of a surrounding environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Mimura by incorporating the teachings of Kondo with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide improved convenient lane guidance.
Further, Kim teaches wherein each of a confirmation display and the third confirmation display has a different visual shape from each other (see at least [0565]: TBT image corresponding to lane change may be displayed differently from a TBT image corresponding to direction change. The TBT image corresponding to lane change may be displayed in a shape, color, transparency or line shape different from the TBT image corresponding to direction change. As shown in FIG. 21A, the TBT image corresponding to lane change may be displayed using a dotted line, [0566]: Referring to FIG. 21B, when a lane change point 2130 is determined, the processor 470 may control the display 441 to display an indicator 2120 that indicates the lane change point 2130… the lane change point 2130 can be determined on the basis of the vehicles that are being driven on neighboring lanes and a distance to a change point. The vehicles that are being driven on the neighboring lanes may be detected by the driver assistance apparatus 100, [0567]: processor 470 may display the indicator 2120 in a color different from other regions, from the lane change point on the lane 2130 to be changed from the current lane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Mimura by incorporating the teachings of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide convenient navigation information to the passenger and aid in safe driving.
As per claim(s) 9, Mimura discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
display the second confirmation at the display section as a line-shaped graphic extending in a road width direction on the lane display corresponding to the second lane (see at least [0108]: HMI controller 174 displays a lock-on-representing image LO and a following-representing image FO at a position associated with an image resembling the other vehicle m3),
an area-shaped graphic with a predetermined size on the lane display corresponding to the second lane (see at least [0085]: a lane change target position TA between two other vehicles, [0092]: target trajectory generator 144 sets a virtual extension line FM and a virtual extension line RM acquired by extending a front end and a rear end of the subject vehicle M on the side of the lane L2 that is a lane change destination).
Mimura does not explicitly disclose the third confirmation display at the display section as an area-shaped graphic with a predetermined size on the lane display corresponding to the second lane.
However, Kondo teaches the third confirmation display at the display section as an area-shaped graphic with a predetermined size on the lane display corresponding to the second lane (see at least [0030]: camera 44 is an image sensor that captures a front image ahead of the vehicle C, [0047]: FIG. 4B and FIG. 4C, in the pre-start state and post-start state of the lane change state, [0068]: control unit 20 updates the front image on which the arrow-shaped guide line gl is superimposed, and causes the user I/F unit 45 to display the updated front image (S130, FIG. 5B), [0069]: When it is determined that the vehicle C is in the post-start state, with the use of the function of the display control unit 21e, the control unit 20 sets the front end point FE and the rear end point BE (S170, FIG. 4C) as in the case of the pre-start state (S150), [0070]: Fig. 5C, [0072]: control unit 20 may determine whether the vehicle C is in the lane change state on the basis of determination elements, such as a state of the driver, an operation state of the vehicle C, a driving operation state of the vehicle C and a state of a surrounding environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Mimura by incorporating the teachings of Kondo with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide convenient lane guidance.
Further, Kim teaches the third confirmation display at the display section as an area-shaped rectangular graphic with a predetermined size on the lane display corresponding to the second lane (see at least [0051]: turn-by-turn (TBT), [0564]: Referring to FIG. 21A, the processor 470 may control the display 441 to display a TBT image corresponding to lane change, [0566]: Referring to FIG. 21B, when a lane change point 2130 is determined, the processor 470 may control the display 441 to display an indicator 2120 that indicates the lane change point 2130… the lane change point 2130 can be determined on the basis of the vehicles that are being driven on neighboring lanes and a distance to a change point. The vehicles that are being driven on the neighboring lanes may be detected by the driver assistance apparatus 100, [0567]: processor 470 may display the indicator 2120 in a color different from other regions, from the lane change point on the lane 2130 to be changed from the current lane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Mimura by incorporating the teachings of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide convenient navigation information to the passenger and aid in safe driving.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura in view of Oniwa and Kondo, and further in view of US 20180118223 (“Mori”).
As per claim(s) 10, Mimura discloses that the lane change representing image in a predetermined color is displayed to allow a vehicle occupant to easily perceive that a lane changing event is executed and the behavior of the subject vehicle has been changed or is changing, and discloses wherein the processor is configured to, when the vehicle is conducting the lane change to the second lane after displaying the at least one of the first confirmation display, the second confirmation display, and the third confirmation display, delete the at least one of the first confirmation display, the second confirmation display, and the third confirmation display (see at least [0107]: FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating a state of the vicinity of a subject vehicle M at a time t2 in the first situation together with an image generated by the HMI controller 174. FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating one example of an image IM3 displayed on the second display 32B in the state of the subject vehicle M illustrated in FIG. 11, [0110]: HMI controller 174 can allow a vehicle occupant to easily perceive that a lane changing event is executed, and the behavior of the subject vehicle M has been changed or is changing, [0111]: FIG. 13 is a diagram illustrating a state of the vicinity of a subject vehicle M at a time t3 in the first situation together with an image generated by the HMI controller 174. FIG. 14 is a diagram illustrating one example of an image IM4 displayed on the second display 32B in the state of the subject vehicle M illustrated in FIG. 13. The examples illustrated in FIGS. 13 and 14 illustrate a state in which the subject vehicle M has completed a lane change from a lane L1 to a lane L2).
Mimura does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to, when the vehicle is conducting the lane change to the second lane after displaying the at least one of the first confirmation display, the second confirmation display, and the third confirmation display, delete the at least one of the first confirmation display, the second confirmation display, and the third confirmation display, and display an execution display at the display section when the vehicle is conducting the lane change to the second lane.
However, Mori teaches wherein the processor is configured to, when the vehicle is conducting the lane change to the second lane after displaying the at least one of the first confirmation display, the second confirmation display, and the third confirmation display, delete the at least one of the first confirmation display, the second confirmation display, and the third confirmation display, and display an execution display at the display section when the vehicle is conducting the lane change to the second lane (see at least [0109]: FIG. 15 illustrates display of the projection area 14a when automatic lane change has been put on hold (refer to T12 of FIG. 11). Further, FIG. 16 illustrates display of the projection area 14a when a lane change is started by automatic lane change (refer to T13 of FIG. 11), [0110]: The LCA indicator 52c is arranged side by side with the indicators 52a, 52b below the status image 151. During holding of automatic lane change, the LCA indicator 52c includes a character of “READY” to notify the driver that the start of automatic lane change has been put on hold (standby state)…the character of “READY” is deleted from the LCA indictor 52c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Mimura by incorporating the teachings of Mori with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce stress of a driver by actively operating the driving support device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20170036601 (“Kimura”) (see at least [0081]: display control unit 15 projects, for example, the preceding vehicle monitoring display K so as not to overlap the image N of the preceding vehicle);
US 20200080864 (“Ichinokawa”) (see at least [0069]: display mode controller 153 may display an indication mark MK2 indicating a target lane);
US 20210016793 (“Yamaguchi”) (see at least [0102]: when another vehicle 37 traveling on the right lane is detected, an auxiliary image 47 indicating “waiting” for the lane change to the right lane is displayed in a superimposed manner while the guidance marks 41 indicating the planned path are maintained);
US 20200086890 (“Ikeda”) (see at least abstract: display system includes a display that displays a first image simulating a road on which a host vehicle is traveling, and a display controller that causes the display to display a second image simulating a recommended lane given to a controller that performs driving control of the host vehicle at a position associated with the first image, and to display a third image simulating a target trajectory generated by the controller that performs driving control of the host vehicle at a position associated with the first image);
US 8676431 (“Mariet”) (see at least column 11 lines 4-16: The presentation of segment 148a in green, for example, may indicate that vehicle 101 is maintaining an appropriate following distance along path 116 behind the second vehicle. If computer 110 determines a change of lanes is appropriate as shown in FIG. 20, the computer may display path 116 so as to change from within the current lane to the lane to which computer 110 intents to move vehicle 101. This can be done, for example, if the vehicle's route requires the vehicle to take an exit, make a turn, etc. If a third vehicle is present within the lane into which computer 110 would like to move, such as the identified object indicated by box 113d, computer will refrain from changing lanes.);
US 20210003410 (“Takeuchi”) (see at least [0060]: FIG. 9 is another diagram for explaining a route generated by the route calculation unit 114 in the route generation device 110).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELINA M SHUDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6757. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10am - 6pm.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
Angelina Shudy
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Angelina M Shudy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668