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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is 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.
It is also noted that dependent claims based upon the rejected claims are also rejected based upon dependency.
Regarding claim 1, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “a vehicle display device comprising…a display that…a vehicle cabin…that includes…at a display area, a display region that displays” does not distinctly set forth particularly and distinctly for what or which region is the display that actually referring to as whether the “display region” in the display, vehicle cabin or the display area that ought to be ascertained particularly and distinctly within claim limitation regards applicant’s invention as to ascertain the metes and bounds regards. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ogata (JP 2019 - 218243 in view of Ogata, US Pat Pub No. 20210162865).
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 15, a vehicle display device and processing method (See at least Para 0005 for vehicle display device and Para 0080 for display method), a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that is executable by a computer to perform processing (See at least Para 00789 for computer processing and Para 0079 for non-transitory computer readable medium and ), the processing comprising comprising:
a display that is provided inside a vehicle cabin (See at least Para 0005 for display in the vehicle cabin) and that includes a specific display region that displays a plurality of plans scheduled to be implemented with respect to a vehicle at a display area (See at least figure 4B for a pluarlity of plans P1, P2 and P3 displayed),
arranged in an order in which the plurality of plans are scheduled to be implemented (See at least figure 4B for a pluarlity of plans P1, P2 and P3 arranged by the distance order scheduled to be implement);
a processor configured to cause display of a first plan among the plurality of plans (See at least Para 0023 for processor 30),
and an alternative plan has a possibility of being implemented instead of the first plan at the specific display region (See at least figure 4B for the Plan P2 as the alternative plan in the manual mode alternative to auto mode).
Regarding claims 2, 14 and 16, Ogata et al shows the processor is configured to cause display of the alternative plan at the specific display region between the first plan and a second plan, which is scheduled to be implemented next after the first plan (See at least figure 4B for alternative plan P2 is to be implemented next after first plan P1).
Regarding claim 3, Ogata et al shows the first plan is a top plan that is scheduled to be implemented first among the plurality of plans (See at least Para 0048 for P1display is in larger size).
Regarding claim 4, Ogata et al the first plan is an operation of the vehicle by driving assistance control (See at least figure 4B for first plan P is in AUTO autonomous driving on Para 0016);
in a case in which a predetermined condition relating to the first plan is satisfied (See at least Para 0063 for vehicle passed location of the scheduled action), the processor is configured to cause display of the alternative plan (See at least Para 0064 and 0065 for P2), is a manual operation of the vehicle of a same type as the first plan at the specific display region (See at least Para 0039 for P2 is manual).
Regarding claim 5, Ogata et al shows the processor is configured to cause display of the alternative plan in a color that is different from at least the first plan (See at least Para 0075 for changing the color of the emphatic display differ).
Regarding claim 6, Ogata et al shows the processor is configured to cause a last plan scheduled to be implemented last among the plurality of plans to be removed from the specific display region (See at least figure 6A for last plan P3 removed from the display region),
in a case the alternative plan is added and displayed at the specific display region (See at least figure 6A for alternative plan P2 added and displayed).
Regarding claim 7, Ogata et al shows in a case in which operation of the first plan has started, the processor is configured to cause the alternative plan to be removed from the specific display region (See at least figure 5A for alternative plan P2 has been removed from display region).
Regarding claim 8, Ogata et al shows the predetermined condition relating to the first plan is the operation of the vehicle relating to the first plan not starting at a scheduled implementation timing of the first plan (See at least Para 0063 for vehicle passed location of the scheduled action).
Regarding claim 9, Ogata et al the predetermined condition relating to the first plan is a possibility of the operation of the vehicle relating to the first plan not starting at a scheduled implementation timing of the first plan (See at least Para 0090 for timing of the scheduled action passed as possibility confirmation as approaches the scheduled action).
Regarding claim 10, Ogata et al shows the display is provided at an instrument panel facing a driver's seat (See at least Para 0073 for instrument panel 14).
Regarding claim 11, Ogata et al shows the display is a projection plane projected by a head-up display device (See at least Para 0032 for head up display on figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Ogata et al shows a vehicle (See at least Para 0016 for vehicle 12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian JEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3274. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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.
/Ian Jen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657