Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/938,793

DISPLAY CONTROL DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 06, 2024
Examiner
TUN, NAY L
Art Unit
2688
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% of resolved cases
65%
Career Allow Rate
419 granted / 647 resolved
+2.8% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
672
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.5%
-35.5% vs TC avg
§103
45.7%
+5.7% vs TC avg
§102
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 647 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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 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. Claim Status This action is in response to application filed on November 6, 2024. Claims 1-5 are pending for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kosaka et al. (Kosaka: US 2018/0240258). Regarding Claim 1, Kosaka teaches a display control device comprising: a controller (Fig. 2, 120, 130) configured to control an information display unit that projects and displays information in a screen display frame (DA), which is a predetermined range of a windshield of a vehicle (Par [0027] Specifically, the vehicular display device 100 displays an image in the display area DA along with an object viewed by a driver through the windshield FW. And Par 29, an augmented reality head-up display (AR-HUD) which can display a virtual symbol (image) along with the object viewed by the driver through the windshield FW); and an acquisition unit configured to acquire an image of a front of the vehicle captured by an imaging unit (Par 37-38, preceding vehicle detector 110 includes a camera), wherein the controller is configured to detect, from the image acquired by the acquisition unit, a vehicle to be followed that precedes the vehicle (Par [0037] The preceding vehicle detector 110 detects the position of the preceding vehicle Vp traveling in front of the vehicle V and Par 31), project a marker image (Fig. 1, 200) for causing the vehicle to be followed positioned in the screen display frame to be recognized, in the screen display frame, with any one of a display near the vehicle to be followed and a display on the vehicle to be followed in a superimposed manner (Par 27, the vehicular display device 100 displays a marker image 200 in a manner superimposed on a preceding vehicle Vp in front of the vehicle V when the vehicle V is following the preceding vehicle Vp while traveling.), and control the information display unit such that the marker image exhibits, when the entire vehicle to be followed is in the screen display frame, a first shape in which the marker image is displayed at maximum size, (Fig. 4A, maker 200 and Par 88, when the preceding vehicle Vp is located in the display area DA (between the side edge D.sub.L and the side edge D.sub.R), the vehicular display device 100 displays the marker image 200 below the preceding vehicle Vp. And Fig.4D, M max and Par 93) and the marker image exhibits, when the vehicle to be followed deviates from the screen display frame, a second shape in which the marker image deforms in a state of being in contact with the screen display frame according to a position of the vehicle to be followed present outside the screen display frame (Fig. 4B and Fig. 5B, 200, and Par 89, as illustrated in FIG. 4B, when the preceding vehicle Vp is partially located on the outer side D.sub.OL of the side edge D.sub.L of the display area DA, the vehicular display device 100 reduces the width of the marker image 200 depending on the width of the portion of the preceding vehicle Vp located in the display area DA). Regarding Claim 2, Kosaka teaches the display control device according to claim 1, wherein the second shape is deformed to be shorter in a vehicle width direction of the vehicle to be followed from an end portion in contact with the screen display frame while the second shape maintains a shape of the end portion present in the screen display frame (Kosaka: Fig. 4B and Fig. 5B, marker 200 is shorter, touching the left side of the frame and maintains the same shape of its end, and Par 89, as illustrated in FIG. 4B, when the preceding vehicle Vp is partially located on the outer side D.sub.OL of the side edge D.sub.L of the display area DA, the vehicular display device 100 reduces the width of the marker image 200 depending on the width of the portion of the preceding vehicle Vp located in the display area DA ). Regarding Claim 3, Kosaka teaches the display control device according to claim 2, wherein the end portion of the marker image in contact with the screen display frame is expressed to be cut off in an animation, during the deformation (Kosaka: Fig. 4B and Fig. 5B, Par [0054] the display processor 130 can reduce the size of the marker image 200 while moving the marker image 200 toward the side of the preceding vehicle Vp as the portion of the preceding vehicle Vp located on the outer side of the vehicle widthwise side edge of the display area DA increases. i.e. Moving marker is an animation). Regarding Claim 5, Kosaka teaches the display control device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to, when the vehicle to be followed enters the screen display frame, control the information display unit to expand the marker image of the second shape in a vehicle width direction of the vehicle to be followed to return the marker image to the first shape (Kosaka: Fig. 4A-4C and Fig. 5A-5C, Par [0054] the display processor 130 can reduce the size of the marker image 200 while moving the marker image 200 toward the side of the preceding vehicle Vp as the portion of the preceding vehicle Vp located on the outer side of the vehicle widthwise side edge of the display area DA increases. And Par [0093] FIG. 4D illustrates a relationship between the position of the preceding vehicle Vp and the size (M) of the marker image 200. As illustrated in FIG. 4D, the size (width) of the marker image 200 decreases as the portion of the preceding vehicle Vp outside the side edge D.sub.L or the side edge D.sub.R increases. Moreover, the marker image 200 continues to be displayed at the minimum size when the entire preceding vehicle Vp is located on the outer side D.sub.OL or the outer side D.sub.OR.). 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka in view of Mori et al. (Mori: US 20060215020 A1). Regarding Claim 4, Kosaka teaches the display control device according to claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein an emphasis display is performed on four corners of the screen display frame when the marker image is deformed. However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of vehicular display device. Mori teaches displaying an image to the driver of vehicle (abstract) and further teaches wherein an emphasis display is performed on four corners of the screen display frame when the marker image is deformed (Fig. 4, screen 31 has four corners darkened and Par 54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform an emphasis display on four corners of the screen display frame as taught by Mori as a known implementation in the base vehicular display screen with the predictable result of enabling the driver to notice the boundary of the display area. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior arts cited for the record but not used in Office Action, are listed in attached PTO-892. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nay Tun whose telephone number is (571)270-7939. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 9:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on (571) 270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /Nay Tun/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 06, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 18, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 18, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 24, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584816
Determining Gate State and Remedial Measures Using Gate Sensor Attachment
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573295
DRIVING ASSISTANCE DEVICE, DRIVING ASSISTANCE METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567001
MACHINE LEARNING GENERATION FOR REAL-TIME LOCATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12562047
DROP-IN ON COMPUTING DEVICES BASED ON EVENT DETECTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12559972
VEHICLE-MOUNTED APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+17.7%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 647 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month